Kanye West. Considered one of the greatest hip-hop artists of all time, has been a fan favorite for years. Ever since his debut album, The College Dropout, he has created several number-one albums, earned 23 Grammy awards, and arguably became the most decorated hip-hop artist of all time. Kanye’s music has inspired a new generation of musicians, helping craft the modern hip-hop scene today with artists such as Kendrick Lamar and Travis Scott. However, in recent months Kanye’s streams have massively dropped. Following his racist comments on social media and ignorance of racial events, the move to “cancel” Kanye West has gained major traction. This movement has begged the question, “Can you separate art from the artist?”

With the advent of social media, this question is increasingly important to answer. As social media has risen, cancel culture has proportionally risen, which is the main factor I contemplate this question. As past actions of musical artists are leaked through the internet, the toxicity of cancel culture tries to force individuals to ostracize the person. Part of this “bullying” includes canceling their music, their respective ART.

Socially forcing individuals to not consume Kanye’s music seems to not only be an unfair decision to make, but also a very extreme response. When considering someone’s art, it’s important to make a distinction between the art and the artist. Art is powerful. Canceling an artists entire history of work over personal beliefs is a major negative to our society. West’s statements were destructive to our society. His statements on racism inspired others to stand with him and express hateful feelings. However, even though these statements were negative to our society, an appropriate response would not be to “cancel” his art. West’s music has inspired millions of people to work hard, overcome obstacles, and achieve their dreams. His music that pioneered electronic beats has resulted in our music industry becoming more nuanced sparking advancement never seen before. His music shouldn’t be caught in the crossfire of canceling him as a person.

Those who oppose separating art from the artist believe that listening to an artist is essentially supporting them due to royalties given to an artist for streams. However, as Eden Mor, a journalist for the Daily Free Press, writes “Singers should be seen as businesses. Sure, they are the face of the brand, but there are hundreds of people profiting off their songs.” When considering singers as businesses, it inherently invalidates the opposing side’s beliefs. If the CEO of Microsoft released socially destructive statements, would people stop using all Windows laptops? We know that people wouldn’t because the products of these individuals are beneficial to our society just as art is.

There is no excuse for celebrities to release sexist, racist, and hateful speech. These comments are destructive to our society and their position as a celebrity often enhances this negative impact. However, the products of these artists shouldn’t be considered when determining your position on the person. Art isn’t necessarily representative of an artist’s actions and this distinction is an important one to draw.