Throughout history, philosophers have argued the ethical conundrum of separating art from the artist. However, it is impossible to separate the art from the artist when monetization is involved. 

Social media has become a breeding ground for anyone to voice complaints or defend the art of artists who disclose morally detestable or blatantly criminal activities. Recently, the author of the "Harry Potter" book series, J.K. Rowling, and the credited writer, voice actor and co-creator of "Rick and Morty," Justin Roiland, have been at the center of this debate. 

jk rowling can read

J.K. Rowling reading a copy of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone"

Both of these situations have artists whose art does not reflect their actions. Their art is their main source of income, allowing them to continue their abhorrent behavior. 

While Rowling's transphobia is not present in her books, movies and extended intellectual property, it has become just as important to her public persona as her famed "Harry Potter" series has, equating the two.

Alternatively, Roiland's domestic violence felony charges led to the end of his involvement in "Rick and Morty" and other similarly stylized adult animations he is credited with creating. However, years and years of animators' hard work are now forever tainted with the historical context of Roiland's seal on their finished works. 

The simple crux to this problem comes down to the question: can morally wrong people make aesthetically good art? Since the unequivocal answer is 'yes,' it leads to most of the disagreement. 

It is paramount to remember the difference between a moral critique of an artist and an aesthetic critique of an art piece. Theoretically, these two are not connected, creating a simple equation for separating art from the artist. However, the monetary gain of an artist through their art completely decimates any opportunity for this theory to be a reality. 

By funding artists via the consumption of their art, people inadvertently are complicit in the unabashed behaviors of immortal individuals. 

It would be arrogant to tell someone to change their life around someone else's wrongdoings. However, it does not change that artists and others in power have a significant say in many people's day-to-day lives through the inappropriate actions, ideologies and stereotypes they uphold in their rhetoric.

It is hypocritical to be aware of the hateful discourse that an artist speaks and still willingly partake in funding them. This course of action would deny involvement in their morally questionable activities. 

Therefore, in an ever-public and monetized art world, it is impossible to separate the actions of an artist from the art they created.