Summary

The article contemplates the ethical dilemma of enjoying art, specifically music, created by individuals who have been accused or convicted of serious crimes, using R. Kelly and Michael Jackson as case studies.

Abstract

The author reflects on the personal conflict of appreciating the music of R. Kelly and Michael Jackson, both of whom have been associated with sexual abuse allegations. Despite R. Kelly's conviction and subsequent 30-year jail sentence, the author grapples with the nostalgia and inspiration derived from his songs. Similarly, while Michael Jackson was acquitted of child sexual abuse charges, the accusations against him have not entirely diminished his musical legacy in the author's eyes. The piece delves into the complexity of separating the art from the artist, acknowledging that consuming the work of these individuals may financially support them but also recognizing that the emotional connection to the art is not solely motivated by a desire to enrich the artist. The author concludes that there is no straightforward answer to whether one should continue to enjoy the art created by morally questionable artists, leaving the reader to ponder the intricate relationship between art and artist.

Opinions

The author expresses a deep personal connection to R. Kelly's music, citing songs that have significantly impacted their life.
There is a recognition that the enjoyment of art is not solely driven by the intention to financially support the artist.
The author suggests that the legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty" provides a defense for continuing to appreciate Michael Jackson's music, as he was not found guilty in a court of law.
The article posits that the separation of art from the artist is a complex ethical question without a clear-cut answer.
The author indicates that memories associated with certain songs make it difficult to simply discard the music of artists like R. Kelly, despite their crimes.
The piece highlights the emotional and inspirational value that the art of controversial figures, such as Harvey Weinstein's films and Kevin Spacey's performances, can provide to audiences.
The author admits to listening to R

When Is It OK To Throw the Baby Out With the Bathwater?

I love R. Kelly’s music. What should I do with him now?

A man throws some ashes in the sky with his eyes closed. Photo by Victor Dueñas Teixeira on Unsplash

When was the last time you listened to R. Kelly’s music?

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you are very aware of R. Kelly’s legal troubles. Found guilty of multiple sexual offenses, he has been sentenced to a 30-year jail term.

While R. Kelly’s case is almost unique based on the long history of accusations against him and how widespread it was, he is not the first artist or creative to face troubles with the law for sexual offenses or other equally repugnant allegations.

Enter Michael Jackson, the king of pop. Even after his death, he has been accused by multiple people of child sexual abuse. At one point, he was indicted by a grand jury but later found not guilty at trial.

Aside from the history of sexual abuse that they share in common, Michael Jackson and R. Kelly made great music, timeless music.

I remember listening to Sign of A Victory by R. Kelly, a song he made to commemorate the 2010 FIFA world cup in South Africa. I remember growing up to songs like I Believe I Can Fly. Words cannot sufficiently describe how much inspiration this song gave me to dream, to imagine a world beyond the little community where I grew up. The nickname I chose for myself in high school was inspired by the song When A Woman Loves. How can I ever forget such a beautiful song?

You can imagine the dilemma I faced when I learned of all the horrible things R. Kelly did to those young boys and girls. There were multiple calls for his music to be boycotted and Spotify even removed his songs from playlists on the platform. I was conflicted because everybody out there now hated R. Kelly, and I suddenly was supposed to stop listening to his music and hate them too. But even if I could dislike him for his crimes, how was I supposed to forget all the good memories his songs gave me growing up? How do I forget the inspiration, the dreams, and the hope he gave me as a child through his music?

Love and hate aren’t something you switch off and on at the flip of a finger. Unfortunately, science hasn’t found a safe way to wipe out unwanted memories. Even if there was a way, the memories I had of his music were good, and I wasn’t so sure I wanted to wipe them away.

Where do I start with Michael Jackson? I played his song Speechless so much. If my speakers could talk, they would have complained of how bored they were from playing Speechless all day. When We Are the World was remade after the Haiti earthquake, it put a human face on the sufferings of the Haitian people. I lived far away in Nigeria and hadn’t experienced an earthquake. The song made me relate to the Haitian people in ways I could never explain. Heal The World made me believe that the world could be a better place if we tried.

Unlike R. Kelly, Michael Jackson wasn’t found guilty. This means that whenever I’m confronted with opposition — internal or external — about listening to the many beautiful arts he created, I have a very legitimate defense. I say that in law, you are always innocent until found guilty, and Dear Michael wasn’t found guilty. And then I continue blasting Speechless through my speakers as I sing along to it.

One of the loudest arguments against consuming art produced by convicted individuals such as R. Kelly is that the more you listen to his songs, the more money you put in his pockets. The truth however is more complicated. Yes, you put more money in his pockets, but nobody chooses to listen to any song solely because they want to make the singer richer. That’s not just something you usually think about.

You listen to a song because it makes you feel good, you listen because you like the song, and you listen because of the memories associated with the song.

The same applies to the movies we watch. In February 2020, Harvey Weinstein, the popular Hollywood director was sentenced to 16 years in prison for rape. Harvey Weinstein has produced amazing movies like Lord of the Rings, Django Unchained, The Founder, and Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom, amongst others. The man has a bibliography of over 200 movies. When I watched, The Founder, and Django Unchained, I didn’t watch them because I was trying to make the producers rich.

I vividly remember watching The Founder, I got so much inspiration, I mean, who wouldn’t be inspired by a grass-to-grace story? Now that I know the producer and I know that he has done terrible things, it still doesn’t mean I should forget how much I enjoyed the movie, or how much it inspired me.

Kevin Spacey is a magnificent actor and House of Cards always makes the list of my favorite series. Should I never watch House of Cards again now that I know he’s been accused of sexual offenses?

This whole conundrum boils down to a basic question; can we separate the art from the artist? If the artist can be considered as a separate entity from the art, then irrespective of the artist’s flaws, the art would be left untainted and unblemished. On the other hand, if the answer is no, then a condemnation of the artist is also a condemnation of his/her art.

Like many other issues in ethics, there is no simple answer to this question. Maybe one day far in the future, we might have definite answers. Today is not that day. I write these words as I listen to R. Kelly’s When A Woman’s Fed Up on Spotify. It’s such an emotional song for me.

Editorial Disclaimer- The opinions expressed within this content are solely the author’s and do not reflect the opinions and beliefs of the Medium website, its editors, or its affiliates.