It is not at all uncommon for individuals to consume art made/produced by other people. At face value, there is nothing wrong with that; however, from a perspective of ethical consumption, some products shouldn’t be consumed. For the most part, ethical consumption references companies, such as Target, Francesca’s, Shein, Amazon, Nestle, Starbucks, and more, but could these practices also apply to individuals, such as musicians? To put it another way: can we ethically separate the art from the artist?
The first factor to consider is what the artist has done. There is a big difference between supporting Anish Kapoor, who is hated in the artistic community for owning exclusive rights to Vantablack paint, and supporting Harvey Weinstein, a convicted rapist. The next thing to account for is how these actions manifest themselves in their works. Peso Pluma has been accused of associating with the Sinaloa cartel, which is not surprising given that many of his songs, performances, and music videos glorify gang activity. Does supporting Peso Pluma mean supporting the cartel? Consider that he is also reportedly being investigated for laundering cartel money. Promoting his music may also be considered promoting gang lifestyles, although it is unclear how many people have actually joined gangs because of Peso Pluma.
Next, we need to consider how we are supporting the individual. Are we giving them money, or are we promoting them to other people? How much? Concert tickets, for example, cost more money than movie tickets or streaming. Musicians on Spotify make very little money from streaming alone. When you go to a concert or movie, you may also enjoy it and recommend it to other people, who will then spend money to attend and perhaps become influenced. However, in the case of R. Kelly, royalties from his music were recently ordered to be paid to his victims. Similarly, the rights to O.J. Simpson’s book are owned by the family of Ron Goldman, one of his victims, and a portion of the initial profits went to the family of his other victim, Nicole Brown Simpson. In that sense, while the artists undeniably committed heinous crimes, consuming their products does not inherently support their actions or their bank accounts.
Separating the art from the artist goes both ways, too; someone with no ill will whatsoever could easily make a poorly executed artistic work that reinforces negative stereotypes or other problematic suggestions. Colleen Hoover’s It Ends with Us has faced several such controversies; many people criticized Hoover for announcing a “tone-deaf” coloring book based on the story, which is about domestic violence. Blake Lively, star and executive producer of the movie adaptation, faced similar backlash for her promotion of the movie as a fun romantic comedy. I never read the book, so I can’t attest to the content itself, but it is conceivable that neither of these women were deliberately trying to sabotage domestic abuse victims; they were simply focusing on marketing and profits over the message itself.
As with most questions of this nature, the answer is, “It depends.” It may be possible to separate the art from the artist, but it requires good judgement to make that determination.