args

Separate the art from the character or personification of the artist

Rebuttal: So I'll start this off by saying the inherent flaw in the substantive put forth is simply in the mischaracterization of this motion. When we talk about separating one's art from one's self WE ARE NOT inherently talking about that art not being enjoyed. I believed that fundamentally art is an extension of the artist and as such any art must be viewed with the context of the artist. THIS IS NOT TO SAY that the art mustn't be viewed at all because of the artist. I think the distinction is really unclear in your argument. I think that art is a matter of influence and perception. It is impossible to, As imperfect beings, Remove oneself from one's work. I believe that as such any form of art is by extension influenced or a figment of the artist's perception. They are innately interlinked. But even then, What I'm really trying to get at is that art shouldn't be removed from the artist because context, Or the artist, Can many a time change perception. Take Louis C. K as an example. He, And I quote from the NYT, "cornered two women and masturbated in front of them with no consent and used that moment in his comedy show". Now I'm not judging you for watching this, Or even for finding it funny. I believe it is quite ostentatious why having the pretext of Louis C. K's character can help change how you view that particular show or segment. You want to talk about R. Kelly? He has a work of art called 'I see nothing wrong'. I'm not saying that the song is bad, And shouldn't be liked. BUT IT IS important to know the roots of the song, Specifically the dark confession of his heinous acts pertaining to it. Just to summarise, Viewing art by a bad character is not wrong. I think it is fine to enjoy Louis C. K's jokes, Or R. Kelly's music. However, Since expression is an extension of being, And that context can really shape the underlying message of any work of art, It is required and shouldn't be disregarded.