"SEPERATING THE ART FROM ARTIST"
This article titled “We Need to Be Separating the Art from the Artist” by Elise Coelho should be published due to its timely and well-argued exploration of a very relevant and controversial issue in today’s cultural discourse. Coelho’s article addresses the complex and often difficult question of whether we should appreciate or condemn works of art created by people whose personal actions or beliefs are problematic. Drawing from several famous examples, including Picasso, Roald Dahl, and J.K. Rowling, she presents a compelling case for why we should view art as separate from its creator’s personal views or conduct. This piece brings an essential perspective to light and should be shared with a wider audience.
Coelho’s central claim is that we should separate the art from the artist, as art takes on a social and cultural significance beyond its creator. She supports this argument by stating that art reflects society at a given time, making it more than just a personal expression. Additionally, she argues that once art is released to the public, it becomes a masterpiece, independent of the creator’s character. Lastly, she highlights how social media amplifies controversies surrounding artists, intensifying public backlash but not diminishing the cultural value of their work. These reasons are logical, as they emphasize art’s broader social impact rather than limiting it to the creator’s actions. However, while Coelho provides relevant examples such as Pablo Picasso, Roald Dahl, and J.K. Rowling, some points could be further strengthened with a deeper analysis of how audiences engage with art despite controversies. UTA readers, particularly those in creative fields or studying ethics, might find this argument compelling, but a stronger engagement with counterarguments would enhance its persuasiveness.
One compelling reason to publish this article is its use of emotional appeal (pathos) to highlight the deep connections people have with art. Coelho draws on the cultural phenomenon of Harry Potter to illustrate how literature and media shape personal identities, communities, and worldviews. Despite J.K. Rowling’s controversial views, millions of people still cherish the series for the impact it has had on their childhoods and personal growth. For many, Harry Potter represents a sense of belonging, nostalgia, and moral lessons that extend far beyond its author's personal beliefs. Coelho emphasizes that art’s influence often extends beyond its creator’s intentions, becoming a shared experience that resonates with audiences on a profound level. This emotional connection raises important questions about whether it is fair to discard artistic works that have deeply affected people's lives. Her argument acknowledges the emotional complexity of engaging with art made by controversial figures, but she insists that erasing or dismissing such works altogether deprives individuals of meaningful experiences. The Shorthorn readers at UTA will likely respond positively to Coelho’s use of pathos, as it taps into their emotional connections with art, such as the cultural significance of Harry Potter. By evoking nostalgia and shared experiences, Coelho encourages readers to reconsider whether moral judgments on an artist should determine the fate of their work. By tapping into readers’ personal and sentimental connections to art, the article presents a powerful case for its continued appreciation. This approach compels audiences to consider the long-term cultural significance of art and whether moral judgments on an artist should determine the fate of their creative contributions.
Furthermore, Coelho strengthens her credibility (ethos) by referencing well-known artists and their problematic histories, demonstrating that this debate is not a new one. She discusses Picasso’s abusive behavior and Roald Dahl’s antisemitic views, yet acknowledges that their contributions to art and literature remain significant and widely studied. Picasso’s artistic innovations revolutionized modern art, and Dahl’s books have captivated generations of young readers. By incorporating historical context and real-world examples, Coelho crafts a balanced, well-researched argument that supports the idea that artistic merit should be judged separately from personal failings. She does not excuse or dismiss the problematic actions of these artists; instead, she calls for a more nuanced understanding of their work, one that recognizes both the flaws of the creator and the value of their artistic contributions. This careful and well-supported approach enhances the article’s impact, making it an insightful and credible piece worthy of publication. Rather than advocating for blind acceptance of all art regardless of an artist's actions, Coelho urges readers to critically engage with artistic works while acknowledging the complex moral questions they pose. Her approach ensures that the discussion remains thoughtful rather than reactionary, fostering a deeper understanding of how history, culture, and ethics intersect in artistic evaluation. The Shorthorn readers will likely appreciate Coelho’s use of ethos, as it strengthens her credibility. By referencing well-known artists like Picasso and Roald Dahl, she grounds her argument in real examples, showing that the debate over separating art from the artist is not new.
Coelho uses logical reasoning (logos) to argue that art is a social product, belonging to the cultural landscape rather than solely to the artist. She asserts that once art is released into the world, it becomes a shared experience. It is no longer just the property of its creator but exists within a broader cultural dialogue. This means audiences can interpret and engage with the work in various ways, depending on their perspectives and experiences. UTA students, many of whom come from diverse cultural and academic backgrounds, may find this reasoning especially compelling. As students who study literature, history, sociology, and ethics, they are often taught to analyze works independently of their creator to consider context, impact, and interpretation. Because of this academic training, they are likely to find Coelho’s logic convincing, as it aligns with the idea that meaning is co-created between the art and the audience. Moreover, as future professionals in fields where ethical judgment is complex, UTA readers may appreciate the nuanced logic that allows for critical engagement without oversimplifying cultural contributions. By situating art within this wider context, Coelho offers a perspective that resonates with students who are learning to think critically and view culture through multifaceted lenses.
Additionally, Coelho highlights how technology and social media have intensified the examination of artists, contributing to the blurred lines between artists and their audiences. In the digital age, public figures can be easily scrutinized and criticized in real time, making it harder for audiences to separate an artist’s actions from their creative contributions. While acknowledging the importance of accountability, Coelho argues that the increased scrutiny should not lead to reactionary rejections of significant artistic works. She emphasizes that art, once shared with the world, can take on a life of its own, detached from its creator's actions. The work itself can continue to hold value regardless of the artist’s failings, allowing audiences to engage with it without being clouded by external controversies. Coelho urges that the focus should remain on the impact and message of the art, not solely on the artist's morality. In this way, audiences can critically evaluate the art in a more nuanced, objective light.
Finally, Coelho urges readers to adopt a more critical perspective that acknowledges both ethical concerns and the independent cultural value of art. Rather than making emotional, reactionary judgments, she emphasizes the need for a more nuanced approach to art appreciation. By engaging with art in an informed and thoughtful way, society can assess cultural contributions fairly and meaningfully, ensuring that works are valued beyond the controversies surrounding their creators. She argues that this approach allows for a deeper
connection to art, independent of personal biases or the actions of the artist. This perspective fosters a more mature understanding of art’s role in society and its potential to transcend individual shortcomings. Ultimately, Coelho advocates for a balanced evaluation that separates the art from the artist while considering its broader significance.
Some critics argue that we should avoid engaging with the works of artists or writers whose moral conduct is questionable, believing that consuming or celebrating their art indirectly supports their problematic behavior. They contend that rejecting the work is an essential form of accountability. This view emphasizes that art is not separate from its creator, and by supporting the work, we might unintentionally perpetuate harmful ideologies. However, Coelho challenges this perspective, advocating for the separation of the artist from their art. UTA students may have mixed reactions to this counterargument. On one hand, some may agree with the critics, especially those who are passionate about social justice and accountability. These students might feel that continuing to celebrate certain works can harm marginalized communities and signal tolerance of unethical behavior. On the other hand, many UTA students especially those studying arts, communication, or literature—may find Coelho’s response more persuasive. Her belief that erasing problematic artists oversimplifies history aligns with the academic practice of engaging with uncomfortable truths to understand them, not erase them. These students are encouraged to engage critically, not cancel blindly, and may therefore appreciate Coelho’s call for a thoughtful, nuanced approach. Ultimately, Coelho’s ability to present a balanced rebuttal allows students to reflect on their values while considering the broader implications of cultural erasure.
Coelho’s article effectively appeals to readers through a combination of credibility, logic, and emotional resonance, making her argument both persuasive and engaging. She demonstrates her credibility by referencing well-known historical and contemporary figures, such as Picasso and J.K. Rowling, using their controversies to illustrate the complexities of separating art from the artist. Her logical reasoning is evident in her argument that art, once released into the world, becomes part of a shared cultural experience that can be appreciated independently of its creator’s failings. Additionally, Coelho’s appeal to the emotions of UTA and Shorthorn readers is especially effective, as it taps into the personal and nostalgic connections that many students have with art and popular culture. For instance, many readers may have grown up reading books like Harry Potter or enjoying iconic films and music that shaped their childhoods, creating a deep bond with these works. Coelho acknowledges this emotional investment, which helps readers understand that art transcends the flaws of its creator. By considering the cultural and personal significance of such works, Coelho encourages readers to think critically about whether it is fair to dismiss these creations solely because of the artist’s shortcomings. For UTA students, who are often navigating complex academic and social landscapes, Coelho’s perspective offers a chance to reflect on how they approach art in a world where social media and cancel culture frequently blur the lines between the personal and the professional.
Publishing this article would not only engage readers in a timely and relevant discussion but also challenge them to think more critically about their relationship with art. Coelho’s thoughtful argument, backed by emotional resonance, credibility, and logic, makes this piece an essential addition to contemporary cultural discourse. The complexity of the issue requires a balanced and nuanced approach, and Coelho successfully navigates this delicate discussion. By sharing this perspective with a broad audience, this article has the potential to deepen public understanding of how we engage with art in a world where morality and
creativity is often at odds. In an era of heightened social awareness, this discussion is more necessary than ever, encouraging a dialogue that does not simply dismiss artists based on controversy but instead fosters a more thoughtful engagement with the cultural and historical significance of their work. As society continues to grapple with these debates, this article serves as an essential resource for fostering thoughtful, informed conversations about the nature of artistic appreciation and the ethical considerations surrounding it.
***
