Should we separate the art from the artist?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Should we separate the art from the artist?". Your opponent's style: Devil's advocate

We should not separete the art from the artist,if someone steals,kills or rate he or she should not be forgive just because he or she does pretty things sometimes

You're confusing two separate questions. Refusing to separate art from artist doesn't punish the criminal, it just tanks your own enjoyment. Why should a murderer's guilt strip you of experiencing great work? That's letting them control you twice.

If you know what they did,you won't forget it and that will ruin the experience,like watching a movie where you know the actor raped an actress

Knowing ruins it for you, sure, but that's a personal problem, not a moral one. You can't unknow facts. The question isn't whether knowledge affects you, it's whether the art's quality actually changes. Did the film get worse, or just your feelings about it?

You're splitting hairs to avoid the real issue. Morality isn't separate from how we live our lives—it's about the choices we make every day. If I knowingly fund a rapist's career by watching his film, that's a moral choice, not just a feeling. You can't pretend the money, the platform, the validation don't flow back to him. The art doesn't exist in a vacuum. Supporting it means supporting him.

You've shifted the argument deliberately. Watching a film isn't funding anyone in 2026, not unless you're buying it new. Streaming royalties are fractional, and pirating sidesteps your "moral choice" entirely. You're actually saying separating art from artist is impossible because guilt is contagious, not because the separation is logically false. Those are different claims. Which one are you actually defending?

If you don't separete art from artist we will have more criminals making movies,books and painting because people buy the things they made anyway

That's backwards. If we never separate art from artist, criminals lose their platform entirely, so fewer would bother. You're arguing we should separate them to punish bad behavior, which contradicts your opening position. Which is it?

You're twisting my words. I'm not saying separate them to punish them—I'm saying don't separate them because morality matters in every choice we make. If we keep buying their work, we're telling society that talent erases accountability. That's the problem. We enable more criminals by pretending the art excuses the artist.

You're still conflating two things: whether buying their work enables them, and whether the art itself changes. Those need different answers. Yes, buying new work funds them. But rewatching a decades-old film doesn't. Your real argument is "don't financially support active criminals," not "art and artist are inseparable." That's a purchasing ethics question, not a metaphysical one. Do you actually believe the Caravaggio painting got morally worse when you learned he killed someone?

The painting itself does not becomes worse but if the person is actually alive we can cancel them

So you admit art doesn't change with the artist's crimes. "Cancel" is just refusing to fund them, which has nothing to do with separating art from artist. You're arguing for boycotts, not metaphysics. Why pretend it's deeper than that?