In his famous 1967 essay, Le Morte de l’Auteur or The Death of the Author, French literary critic Roland Barthes argues that “The birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the author.” Essentially, the meaning of a text is not determined by an author’s intention, but rather, the reader’s. Once published, literature takes on a life of its own, independent of the author’s original purpose. Consuming any art in this approach, by disregarding the background and context of a work, can provide for a rich experience, allowing anyone to craft their own interpretations and applications for a particular piece of art.

The Death of the Author theory was rooted in a greater literary movement, New Criticism, which evaluated literature based solely on the quality of the text, independent of intrinsic meaning. It’s an academic approach to analyzing literature, and its applications can be seen inside the classroom. Barthes furthered this idea and proposed that a text is created by a reader, through interpretation and reinvented by every reader, ignoring whatever intentions an author may have. Barthes’ idea has since been expanded beyond literature, influencing how we interpret film and music. 

Some argue Death of the Author provides justification for continuing to enjoy art created by controversial figures, reinforcing the idea art exists independently of its creator. Debates surrounding this idea have resurfaced in recent years, particularly in response to figures like Kanye West, whose anti-semitic sentiments have prompted renewed discussions about separating art from the artist. Similar questions have been raised over once admired stars like Bill Cosby, previously known as “America’s dad” before being convicted on charges of rape in 2018; “The King of Pop” Michael Jackson, amid allegations of predatory behavior; and legendary author Roald Dahl, whose problematic views can be seen in the harmful stereotypes featured in his works. 

We hear about people in positions of power doing bad things often. But when they are associated with a piece of art or media we are emotionally attached to, we feel betrayed. Because art is often an escape for us–stories, songs and movies are intended to inspire us and move us deeply. Those who create art and consume it experience something emotional and deeply personal. When we learn a sad truth about our favorite artists, it’s impossible to view it the same way. 

When we find out our favorite artist, whether they be a painter, musician, actor, director, etc. has done or said problematic things, we’re faced with a moral dilemma. We are stuck in this middle ground where we can’t eradicate our love for a particular piece of art, yet we can’t shake off the negative feelings surrounding the new information we learned. We are faced with the question of “Can I still appreciate art despite the artist’s actions?” Often in these cases, we turn to Death of the Author–we say we must separate the art from the artist. But should we?

First of all, by ignoring the background of an artist, we deprive ourselves of context vital for critically analyzing a piece of art. To thoroughly understand a piece of art, it’s beneficial to learn more about the author and the context in which it was created, to better visualize its impact on the world and how it reflected the time it was made. Ignoring an artist’s background and the historical context of their work risks erasing deeper meaning. Art, although it may seem like it sometimes, does not exist in a vacuum, instead reflecting the time, attitudes and experiences of its creator. 

The debate over separating art from the artist becomes even more complicated when financial support is involved. Whenever we buy a book or stream a song or buy a ticket to a movie, we contribute directly to an artist’s success. Many argue, simply, if an artist is exposed for doing or saying bad things, fans should no longer continue to spend money on their work in hopes to give them less power or less of a platform. This means many turn to piracy, a sure-fire way to avoid supporting them further, but this raises further concerns. First, this fails to address the deeper moral debate, because it’s hard to “unlike” a piece of media you like–or avoid it–but also, it disregards the contributions of other creatives who were involved in the creation of a piece of art.

In our increasingly hostile culture of snap judgements, situations begging the question of separating art from the artist are often painted as black or white; either an author has a spotless past and it’s okay to consume their work, or artists with flaws should be perpetually avoided. However, it’s necessary to factor in this decision the severity of the artist’s actions. There is a gray area to this discussion–accountability; acknowledging the harmful behaviors of artists while recognizing the quality of their work, especially when it does not represent those harmful behaviors.

Death of the Author cannot be done in its purest form, nor can art ever be separated from the artist since art is so often embedded with the creator’s experiences. However, fans of various pieces of art have proved frequently art can take on its own life outside of the author’s views. Consider the massive fandom “Harry Potter” maintains, separated from its author’s problematic remarks. 

It is absolutely possible to acknowledge the genius of an artist without condoning or justifying their harmful behaviors. This moral decision often falls into an economic one, in which some may choose to put their money elsewhere, rather than supporting problematic people, by no longer listening to their music or watching their movies. Ultimately, there is no universal answer since each person must decide where they draw the line. Artists, like all people, are complex and deeply flawed, often living as contradictions of themselves. As great as an artist may be, we need to be willing to accept they may not be a good person.

The views in this column do not necessarily reflect the views of the HiLite staff. Reach Keira Kress at kkress@hilite.org.