Aaron Tracy

Eric Hattal-Mathis is the chair of the philosophy department at Wellesley College.

He wrote a book called Drawing the Line, what to do with the work of immoral artists from museums to the movies.

It's all about what to do, think, and feel when artists that we love do terrible things.

I started off by asking him the obvious question.

So can we separate the art from the artist is a question that really dominates this space.

But I think it's largely the wrong question.

I'm not sure it really matters whether we can separate the art from the artist often, because the question we should be asking is, should we separate the art from the artist?

And when I say, should we separate the art from the artist?

What I mean is that we should be taking seriously what we know about the moral life of the artist, and then asking the question every time, how should what we know about the moral life of the artist factor in

to my art consumption or how I'm engaging with this art in public or how I'm thinking about introducing my kid to this art or broader policy decisions that we make about the arts.

So I think it's essential that the question about the relationship between the moral life of the artist and their artwork remain a live question in all of these different contexts.

One that we need to think about in those contexts and figure out how to answer.

But when we try to separate, when we say, can we separate the art from the artist?

My worry about that is it's often an attempt to say like, well, if we can, then we can sort of prise them apart and not be faced with this question.

How should we engage with the moral life of artists?

And that concerns me, right?

I think that's a question that we should always be thinking about.

And sometimes...

The answer will be that the moral life of the artist isn't particularly relevant in this context.

That's certainly a possibility, and that will happen in all kinds of different situations.