Consider the case of Oscar Wilde. Part of the prologue we read hints at separating
art from the artist. Wilde says that any meaning or moral that people read into the
book is something that the reader brings to the book, not something the author may
have intended. We’ve previously looked at how the Victorians used his fiction to
convict him for what he did in private. To what extent would you say that someone’s
fictional writing reflects on who they are?
• Take it a step further. Think of a controversial famous person. If they wrote a book,
would you read it? Does it matter whether the book is fiction or non-fiction? Are
you/should you be able to separate the author from their work?
• Where would you personally draw the line in terms of separating an artist from their
work? Consider contemporary concerns such as the cancel culture movement, in which
actors, producers and other prominent figures in Hollywood cannot get a job in that
industry because of what they did in their private life – or in which authors and singers
saw their works banned or cancelled because of controversial opinions. There is no
right or wrong stance, this really comes down to your opinion. Do keep in mind that both
stances require you to sacrifice something. If you choose to “cancel” someone, you
potentially limit freedom of speech. If you choose to let everyone do as they like, you
potentially cause offence or perpetuate a harmful status quo
SPECS
, nu zit dit eronder;
