The notion that one can “appreciate the art without supporting the artist” is flawed and ethically problematic.

As consumers of media, regular individuals hold the power to influence who is and isn’t currently relevant and successful in popular culture. 

Take the “Blockout 2024”campaign on social media in which users on TikTok and Instagram encouraged the blocking of celebrities who have not spoken out in support of Palestine in the ongoing conflict with Israel. Encouragement to block celebrities came after photos of the 2024 Met Gala flooded social media and pulled focus from posts documenting Israeli military forces invading Rafah that same evening.  

TikTok user @ladyfromtheoutside, cited as the initiator of the blockout according to NBC News, shared a video calling for a “digitine” (digital guillotine). 

“It’s time to block all the celebrities, influencers and wealthy socialites who are not using their resources to help those in dire need,” Rae said. “We gave them their platforms. It’s time to take it back– take our views away, our likes, our comments (and) our money by blocking them on all social media and digital platforms.” 

Rae’s call was a bold one that can carry a lot of weight but also be pushed aside. When celebrities and other well-known individuals amass such a large following on digital platforms, it can seem like an individual unfollowing and blocking them won’t make an impact. But the Blockout 2024 trend has led to influencers like TikTok personality @haleyybaylee to drop from 10 million followers to 9.9 million followers after uploading a video at the Met Gala users found insensitive. 

Following the lists of people to block that spread on social media, other influential people have since spoken up and shared resources to help those in Palestine. A move many users were quick to point out was convenient timing in light of the mass blocking. 

A seemingly small call-to-action made by one individual had massive impacts on social media. Rae’s push to block people has decreased well-known celebrities’ coveted digital platform statistics. It has also encouraged people to consider who they put into power and are fans of and has pushed high-power people to finally use their platform to spread awareness. 

No artist’s work is so superb that a person can justify overlooking their morals. While an artist’s work may be groundbreaking and astounding, this doesn’t make them infallible. The likelihood of discovering another artist who evokes similar feelings without the same toxic patterns as some of the most popular artists is likely. 

That being said, this doesn’t mean I can’t also acknowledge that ditching your favorite artists is easier said than done.

It is easier to appreciate a Picasso painting whose art no longer directly benefits the painter through his estate, than a problematic songwriter whose music is available through streaming services like Spotify and Apple Music. 

Certain art forms differ in how they may financially and socially benefit an artist.

For example, museums offer a variety of paintings, sculptures, and other visual arts to the public in ways that don’t monetarily support the artist. Instead of buying a work of art from an artist up front, you’re paying a small fee that benefits the museum. In this way, people are able to enjoy an artist’s work without necessarily supporting the artist.

It is, however, difficult to separate the creator from the creation. While art can personally impact and mean different things to each consumer, an artist’s intent for their work influences its meaning. The complete meaning of something, including what it means to someone personally, would be relatively void without the artist.

Even outside of art, our personality leaves a mark on any work, creative or not, that we have a hand in creating. Appreciating someone’s art is, even if subtly, supporting the creator through increased affluence or social popularity, influencing the creator’s overall success.

So, the question is then not if we can appreciate the art and not the artist, but whether we should be appreciating the art of a known shitty person.

Disregarding an unfavorable artist’s work may be tied to the contemporary concept of “cancel culture,” defined by Merriam-Webster as “the practice or tendency of engaging in mass canceling as a way of expressing disapproval and exerting social pressure.” 

Wikipedia’s definition adds that this can lead to “some (being)… ostracized, boycotted, or shunned.”

Both social media users and celebrities have expressed their discontent with cancel culture, which can be problematic itself, depending on who they are defending.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, actress Jennifer Aniston, remarked that she is “so over cancel culture,” which she followed by asking, “Is there no redemption?”

Aniston isn’t alone in that sentiment. Many people have expressed how they feel cancel culture is a way to fear-monger/bully celebrities into doing what the masses want. Under the Reddit thread r/lanadelrey dedicated to the singer, one user asked, “Why do people call lana [Del Rey] problematic?” to which another user responded by commenting, “Outrage culture. Almost everything and everyone is problematic to someone these days.” 

Perhaps smaller issues can be overlooked by some people, like political views or religious beliefs, but when it gets down to more humanitarian matters like societal views, morals and human rights, justifying the disregard of those issues because an artist can craft some art becomes an issue itself.

Take the rapper and fashion designer Ye, formerly known as Kanye West. Ye has a troubled history of erratic and offensive behavior, most notably his many antisemitic remarks. What he has said and how he has behaved has led him to be dropped by brands and even fellow celebrities. Some prominent brands to drop Ye include Adidas, Balenciaga  and even prominent figure Anna Wintour, Vogue magazine’s editor-in-chief, who expressed no intent on working with the musician in the future.

What Ye has said and done doesn’t make his old hit songs, like “Gold Digger” and “Heartless,” any less good than they were before his true nature came to light, but it does make streaming his music or buying from his brands reflect poorly on the consumer.

To write off his racist and bigoted remarks, even for just a moment, signals people don’t care about what he’s said or done. Being in solidarity with those negatively impacted by Ye could be as simple as skipping a song, yet he remains extremely popular.  

But what about when other artists are involved? When actors and actresses participate in films with problematic co-stars or directors, can we then say those who work alongside troubled artists are complicit in those issues?

Actors and actresses don’t always have the luxury of nitpicking jobs they take. But when certain prominent celebrities who are well established within their field choose to work alongside controversial individuals, it signals to fans that certain celebrities don’t care about what their colleagues may have done. 

Take the actress Dakota Johnson who, like Aniston, expressed her displeasure with cancel culture. Both Johnson’s parents and grandparents were well-established in Hollywood, and now she has made a name for herself by achieving a large amount of success. From the start of her acting career, Johnson has been allotted some level of support from her family, allowing her to be pickier in the jobs she participates in. Due to Johnson’s familial relations, she not only has the luxury of choosing whose work she wants to support but also has the power to stand up against those in the industry who have problematic reputations.   

Despite this, when speaking with The Hollywood Reporter about the social condemnation of her former co-stars like Johnny Depp, Shia LaBeouf and Armie Hammer due to the allegations of abuse each had against them, Johnson said that she never experienced issues with any of them and had a great time working with the actors. After subtly defending her colleagues, Johnson added that she “(feels) sad for the loss of great artists… cancel culture is such a f*cking downer.”  

These actors acquitted themselves of their charges, but it’s important to acknowledge that some, like Depp, faced legitimate evidence of abuse; although Depp won his case against ex-wife Amber Heard, that does not mean he is entirely innocent.  

Johnson isn’t alone in her support and ignoring of problematic peers. Actress/singer Selena Gomez continues to work with director and actor Woody Allen, widely known for his films “Midnight in Paris” (2011) and “Manhattan” (1979).

One of Allen’s unfavorable acts is his marriage to his stepdaughter Soon-Yi Previn, whom he adopted around the age of 10 with permission from his now ex-wife, Mia Farrow. The pair married when Previn was 27 and Allen was 62.

Another one of Farrow’s adopted children, Dylan Farrow, also came forward in 1992 at the age of seven and accused Allen of sexual assault. Allen was never charged, but Dylan maintains her allegations as an adult.

For decades, Allen has continued this behavior in his relationships. This repeatedly points to a complete and utter lack of respect for women. While the times are changing and society is progressing, it appears Allen has not changed.

Celebrities have a prominent presence socially and culturally and are thus vulnerable to public scrutiny. When they choose to align themselves with other artists who are known as bad people, it supports the idea that whatever the artist did—whether it be domestic or sexual abuse, verbal threats or repetitive racist remarks—isn’t that serious. It promotes the idea that consumers of media should overlook grave issues because a person is good at their job.

Problematic artists need to be held accountable, starting with fans not supporting their art. In doing so, characteristically bad artists’ popularity may decrease. This can influence whether production companies or businesses want to fund and promote their work. It’s not a secret that companies follow trends and search for what or who is popular; as media consumers, we have the power to determine what and who is popular. We can decide whether we will uplift and bring good or bad people to fame.

We must consider the ethical implications of what we consume before overly simplifying the argument “support the art, not the artist.” It comes down to morals and whether one values theirs.