What do you think?
Rate this book
大師失格：如何在人品與作品之間劃出界線？
Can we still watch Woody Allen's movies? Can we still laugh at Bill Cosby's jokes?
Woody Allen, Kevin Spacey, Dave Chappelle, Louis C. K., J.K. Rowling, Michael Jackson, Roseanne Barr. Recent years have proven rife with revelations about the misdeeds, objectional views, and, in some instances, crimes of popular artists. Spurred in part by the #metoo movement, and given more access than ever thanks to social media and the internet in general, the public has turned an alert and critical eye upon the once-hidden lives of previously cherished entertainers. But what should we members of the public do, think, and feel in response to these artists' actions or statements? It's a predicament that many of us whether it's possible to disentangle the deeply unsettled feelings we have toward an artist from how we respond to the art they produced. As consumers of art, and especially as fans, we have a host of tricky moral question to do the moral lives of artists affect the aesthetic quality of their work? Is it morally permissible for us to engage with or enjoy that work? Should immoral artists and their work be "canceled"? Most of all, can we separate an artist from their art?
In Drawing the Line , Erich Hatala Matthes employs the tools of philosophy to offer insight and clarity to the ethical questions that dog us. He argues that it doesn't matter whether we can separate the art from the artist, because we shouldn't . While some dismiss the lives of artists as if they are irrelevant to the artist's work, and others instrumentalize artwork, treating it as nothing more than a political tool, Matthes argues both that the lives of artists can play an important role in shaping our moral and aesthetic relationship to the artworks that we love and that these same artworks offer us powerful resources for grappling with the immorality of their creators. Rather than shunning art made by those who have been canceled, shamed, called out, or even arrested, we should engage with it all the more thoughtfully and learn from the complexity it forces us to confront. Recognizing the moral and aesthetic relationships between art and artist is crucial to determining when and where we should draw the line when good artists do bad things.
Woody Allen, Kevin Spacey, Dave Chappelle, Louis C. K., J.K. Rowling, Michael Jackson, Roseanne Barr. Recent years have proven rife with revelations about the misdeeds, objectional views, and, in some instances, crimes of popular artists. Spurred in part by the #metoo movement, and given more access than ever thanks to social media and the internet in general, the public has turned an alert and critical eye upon the once-hidden lives of previously cherished entertainers. But what should we members of the public do, think, and feel in response to these artists' actions or statements? It's a predicament that many of us whether it's possible to disentangle the deeply unsettled feelings we have toward an artist from how we respond to the art they produced. As consumers of art, and especially as fans, we have a host of tricky moral question to do the moral lives of artists affect the aesthetic quality of their work? Is it morally permissible for us to engage with or enjoy that work? Should immoral artists and their work be "canceled"? Most of all, can we separate an artist from their art?
In Drawing the Line , Erich Hatala Matthes employs the tools of philosophy to offer insight and clarity to the ethical questions that dog us. He argues that it doesn't matter whether we can separate the art from the artist, because we shouldn't . While some dismiss the lives of artists as if they are irrelevant to the artist's work, and others instrumentalize artwork, treating it as nothing more than a political tool, Matthes argues both that the lives of artists can play an important role in shaping our moral and aesthetic relationship to the artworks that we love and that these same artworks offer us powerful resources for grappling with the immorality of their creators. Rather than shunning art made by those who have been canceled, shamed, called out, or even arrested, we should engage with it all the more thoughtfully and learn from the complexity it forces us to confront. Recognizing the moral and aesthetic relationships between art and artist is crucial to determining when and where we should draw the line when good artists do bad things.
208 pages, Paperback
Published January 2, 2025
17 people are currently reading
1419 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
November 23, 2025
This book is what it says on the tin: a philosophical exploration of the issues around what to do with the art of artists who have been done deeply wrong things. Matthes doesn't provide any easy, simple formulas or answers - he concentrates on exploring the concepts at play, the meanings inherent in our reactions and options, and why it all matters. He does a great job of laying everything out and really getting to the core of things. It gave me a lot to think about and an expanded framework for making my own choices about these artists and their works. Even my two minor disagreements with Matthes were really helpful. Number one, I disagree that his point that individually boycotting an artists' work is unlikely to impact the artist economically means such a boycott is not a meaningful thing. I think that such an economic boycott is not just about the artist's finances but also my finances. If I can only afford to buy 5 books a year, I may very well decide that my carefully saved and managed book-buying budget should not go to an author who is also a rapist or transphobe. Number two, I think Matthes could have considered how our reactions to the art of immoral artists, particularly those who've committed sexual assault, are shaped by our identification with the artist's victims. How are our feelings and choices affected by now seeing ourselves in the artist's victims after a period of seeing ourselves in the artist's work?
Despite those two disagreements, I would still strongly recommend this book to anyone grappling with their relationship to an artist's work after finding about the artist's misdeeds.
Despite those two disagreements, I would still strongly recommend this book to anyone grappling with their relationship to an artist's work after finding about the artist's misdeeds.
Want to read
May 25, 2021Note: I accessed a digital review copy of this book through Edelweiss.
February 16, 2025
I still don't know what to about the works of immoral artists, but I do know that when and where I draw my line, it's at least informed by some serious thought of the topic.
October 10, 2024
Super approachable and clear, which isn't often the case for philosophy books.
February 20, 2022
Well thought out discussion about how to handle the work of artists who have been exposed or accused of wrong-doing. It's a short book but deep with reasoning regarding the issues to be considered. Easy to read but gives you a lot to ponder about the separation of personalities from their art.
January 24, 2023
What do we do with the work of immoral artists? There is no one clear and simple answer applicable across the board: Each artist and piece of art must be evaluated separately within their own context.
The most egregious cases of artist’s immorality is when they use their art to attempt to redeem themselves. For example, in 1994, the singer Aaliyah released a song titled “Age Ain’t Nothing but a Number.” She was fifteen at the time. The song was written and produced by R. Kelly, who was twenty-seven. R. Kelly was the young singer’s mentor—this is not uncommon, as many young artists have mentors, so no problem so far. The trouble started when a marriage certificate was introduced to the public, showing that the two were legally married. With this piece of evidence available, the song suddenly becomes an older man using his art to justify his sexual and romantic relationship with an impressionable teenager. This is socially and morally inappropriate, and we probably shouldn’t listen to the song—there’s plenty of other music out there.
There are, of course, artists who’s immoral actions never cross with their art. Take the case of Kevin Spacey, who has allegedly acted sexually inappropriately towards a number of young men (and some women). When these allegations came to light, he was fired from his current television show and dropped by his agent and publicist. Should we, as consumers of his films and television shows, stop watching? Pay It Forward is one of my favorite movies, a film with no themes about sex with minors or rape allegations. With this example, the answer is much more muddy.
An important point that Matthes brings up in his book is not separating the art from the artist. “Some would have us focus on the artist’s immorality and forget their art. Others act as if art is so important that an artist’s behavior can’t touch it. Both of these perspectives are mistaken. It’s ultimately irrelevant whether we can separate the art from the artist, because we shouldn’t.” It is important to integrate our feelings about the art with our feelings about the artist and embrace whatever bittersweet taste this may evoke. The philosopher Immanuel Kant was racist, but our author and I both “think there is tremendous value in reflecting on Kant’s work, much of which has nothing to do with his racist views and is arguably inconsistent with them.” Kant’s additions to philosophy are important and should be studied. He was also explicitly racist. We must swallow both pills together.
These pills can sometimes feel too large to swallow. Most often, this happens when our trust in an artist is broken. We trust artists because they have a way of bringing complex feelings and ideas further into understanding. “We often feel that our aesthetic loves have a unique ability to eloquently articulate or express our deepest values and commitments in ways that we, less artistically talented folk, are incapable of.” We trust them to take us on a journey, to evoke emotion, to make us think and evaluate beauty. When this trust is broken by an artist’s immoral dealings, we can feel betrayed. When we feel betrayed, we want justice, often (and most recently) via ‘cancellation.’ But cancelling someone is really just a blunt tool, for it does not take into account any of the nuances of what actually occurred. Did the artist transgress on purpose? Do they feel as though their actions are acceptable or do they also morally condemn themselves? The internet mob has no space for nuance, only painting in broad strokes. “When an artist betrays us it doesn’t follow that we must simply abandon their work, any more than we would just abandon a lifelong friend on the heels of a betrayal. To be sure, betrayal can and perhaps should reshape the character of our relationship, but to end a valuable relationship is the last resort, not the first.”
This sentiment brings us back to our original conclusion: Each artist and their art must be evaluated separately. Sometimes conclusions are made on an individual level: we might choose to stop watching Kevin Spacey’s movies because of his sexual misconduct allegations, but we also might not. Personally, I still love the movie Pay It Forward, and will watch it again someday. Sometimes these conclusions are made by the whole group: we should all collectively condemn Bill Cosby and his work now that we understand what a horrible and abusive person he was behind the scenes. The points to be made are simple: do not separate the artist from their art, and evaluate each instance with precision, not broad strokes. Evaluating the work of immoral artists is by definition a muddy practice, so don’t be afraid to get dirty.
The most egregious cases of artist’s immorality is when they use their art to attempt to redeem themselves. For example, in 1994, the singer Aaliyah released a song titled “Age Ain’t Nothing but a Number.” She was fifteen at the time. The song was written and produced by R. Kelly, who was twenty-seven. R. Kelly was the young singer’s mentor—this is not uncommon, as many young artists have mentors, so no problem so far. The trouble started when a marriage certificate was introduced to the public, showing that the two were legally married. With this piece of evidence available, the song suddenly becomes an older man using his art to justify his sexual and romantic relationship with an impressionable teenager. This is socially and morally inappropriate, and we probably shouldn’t listen to the song—there’s plenty of other music out there.
There are, of course, artists who’s immoral actions never cross with their art. Take the case of Kevin Spacey, who has allegedly acted sexually inappropriately towards a number of young men (and some women). When these allegations came to light, he was fired from his current television show and dropped by his agent and publicist. Should we, as consumers of his films and television shows, stop watching? Pay It Forward is one of my favorite movies, a film with no themes about sex with minors or rape allegations. With this example, the answer is much more muddy.
An important point that Matthes brings up in his book is not separating the art from the artist. “Some would have us focus on the artist’s immorality and forget their art. Others act as if art is so important that an artist’s behavior can’t touch it. Both of these perspectives are mistaken. It’s ultimately irrelevant whether we can separate the art from the artist, because we shouldn’t.” It is important to integrate our feelings about the art with our feelings about the artist and embrace whatever bittersweet taste this may evoke. The philosopher Immanuel Kant was racist, but our author and I both “think there is tremendous value in reflecting on Kant’s work, much of which has nothing to do with his racist views and is arguably inconsistent with them.” Kant’s additions to philosophy are important and should be studied. He was also explicitly racist. We must swallow both pills together.
These pills can sometimes feel too large to swallow. Most often, this happens when our trust in an artist is broken. We trust artists because they have a way of bringing complex feelings and ideas further into understanding. “We often feel that our aesthetic loves have a unique ability to eloquently articulate or express our deepest values and commitments in ways that we, less artistically talented folk, are incapable of.” We trust them to take us on a journey, to evoke emotion, to make us think and evaluate beauty. When this trust is broken by an artist’s immoral dealings, we can feel betrayed. When we feel betrayed, we want justice, often (and most recently) via ‘cancellation.’ But cancelling someone is really just a blunt tool, for it does not take into account any of the nuances of what actually occurred. Did the artist transgress on purpose? Do they feel as though their actions are acceptable or do they also morally condemn themselves? The internet mob has no space for nuance, only painting in broad strokes. “When an artist betrays us it doesn’t follow that we must simply abandon their work, any more than we would just abandon a lifelong friend on the heels of a betrayal. To be sure, betrayal can and perhaps should reshape the character of our relationship, but to end a valuable relationship is the last resort, not the first.”
This sentiment brings us back to our original conclusion: Each artist and their art must be evaluated separately. Sometimes conclusions are made on an individual level: we might choose to stop watching Kevin Spacey’s movies because of his sexual misconduct allegations, but we also might not. Personally, I still love the movie Pay It Forward, and will watch it again someday. Sometimes these conclusions are made by the whole group: we should all collectively condemn Bill Cosby and his work now that we understand what a horrible and abusive person he was behind the scenes. The points to be made are simple: do not separate the artist from their art, and evaluate each instance with precision, not broad strokes. Evaluating the work of immoral artists is by definition a muddy practice, so don’t be afraid to get dirty.
April 13, 2022
A very worthwhile read, not especially complicated, despite being written by a philosopher. The thorny underlying issue - what to do about so-called “immoral artists” - is dealt with in four chapters, in which different infamous examples are discussed through different lenses and from various perspectives. The vexed issue of cancel culture is dealt with at some length, as a critical current issue.
Perhaps the most important takeaway is that in order to effect true positive change, the industries and institutions that undergird art and artists need to lead the way. Canceling, shunning or erasing specific individuals will do little to prevent the emergence of predators and bad actors, who are often promulgated if they are perceived to be profitable.
The author does a good job of discussing viable approaches to reckoning with “tainted” artwork, urging that we as consumers do the work of confronting work that makes us uncomfortable, never forgetting or overlooking its problematic sources. There is no one way to grapple with “immoral” art or artists. But there are many alternatives, and they are well explored here.
Perhaps the most important takeaway is that in order to effect true positive change, the industries and institutions that undergird art and artists need to lead the way. Canceling, shunning or erasing specific individuals will do little to prevent the emergence of predators and bad actors, who are often promulgated if they are perceived to be profitable.
The author does a good job of discussing viable approaches to reckoning with “tainted” artwork, urging that we as consumers do the work of confronting work that makes us uncomfortable, never forgetting or overlooking its problematic sources. There is no one way to grapple with “immoral” art or artists. But there are many alternatives, and they are well explored here.
November 15, 2023
This is an important read which tackles the ethics of art and how to respond to controversial artists and art -- completely relevant today. Of course, cancel culture is also discussed. Although it reads more like a primer for a college class (author Matthes does teach a few of these, after all), it is probably accessible to the every day reader. I must point out that, especially for an academic-leaning treatise, it is mercifully brief. Matthes gets to the key points in only four chapters. These cover the relationship between the morals of artists and aesthetics of their art, questions of moral responsibility related to engagement with art, cancel culture and alternatives, and public versus private reactions to art. I wouldn't say this book was hard to put down. The reader can appreciate how Matthes walks through the the ethical dilemmas logically and thoroughly, but some more dense sections rather beg to come up for air. Fortunately he expands upon famous examples like R. Kelly, Woody Allen, and J. K. Rowling to illustrate the philosophical points which break things up a bit.
Note: I received this book through a Goodreads giveaway.
Note: I received this book through a Goodreads giveaway.
July 5, 2022
Were you upset when you first heard about the transgressions of Bill Cosby? Have you wondered about how you should handle relationships with friends or family who have either committed ethically acts or have said objectionable things? Have you thought about whether it ethically matters if you watch movies starring Woody Allen? Why might the works of Gaugin be ethically objectionable but those of Caravaggio not? When is appropriate to “cancel” a work or person? How does the revelation of unethical behavior of an artist affect one’s perception of that artist’s oeuvre? If you would like to explore some of the nuances of these questions and others, you would benefit from this book.
Not only is Drawing the Line well written, it will encourage you to evaluate unethical actors, musicians, writers and others in a more sophisticated way.
Not only is Drawing the Line well written, it will encourage you to evaluate unethical actors, musicians, writers and others in a more sophisticated way.
February 7, 2025
"Yet even if an artist's immoral character doesn't necessarily make their work artistically worse, we may still have reason not to engage with that work." (p39)
"[Ignoring victims] may treat their abuse as an occasion for a purportedly moral stand, but it becomes one that is not ultimately about the victims." (p59)
"It's ultimately irrelevant whether we can separate the art from the artist, because we shouldn't." (p145)
Probably my favorite book I've ready about this subject yet. It unpacks the morality related to the consumption of art in an accessible and relatable way, and it's a book I definitely will return to several times.
"[Ignoring victims] may treat their abuse as an occasion for a purportedly moral stand, but it becomes one that is not ultimately about the victims." (p59)
"It's ultimately irrelevant whether we can separate the art from the artist, because we shouldn't." (p145)
Probably my favorite book I've ready about this subject yet. It unpacks the morality related to the consumption of art in an accessible and relatable way, and it's a book I definitely will return to several times.
June 1, 2025
art and morality.. a matter that i care about deeply. this book was insightful and dove into many corners and aspects of the matter, but similarly to young, just didn’t quite capture me in the way that i was hoping it would. perhaps it is because i would rather discuss such matters rather than read about them, and thus perhaps for non-fiction discursive works such as these reading really is the wrong medium for me. was it a good book? yes! was it for me? probably not.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 22, 2023
Excellent. It doesn't look for easy answers. The author is equally critical of "cancellation" of both artist and art, and those who suggest we simply "separate art from artist". He recommends another way forward that, while not easy, feels right to me. I won't try to summarize it here. It helped me clarify my feelings on this topic. I recommend it.
March 7, 2025
This fed my many questions about art and artists with some great answers. I am a little sad it didn’t provide me with more insights on the relationship between the audience and the artist. Identification: ok, betrayal: fair. But why is that relationship so tight? Why is the art its conduit? It felt a little superficial for me. 3 stars.
January 9, 2023
a very important contribution to an important topic that has been undertreated in a serious way. the last chapter (the last few pages really) really soar off as Matthes ties it all together. also i never thought i'd read a philosophy book that mentioned mst3k
January 16, 2023
A thoughtfully written essay on how one can or should reckon with immortal artists that could have stated its position at the outset and developed/defended it from there forward.
January 26, 2023
More a 3.5. Well-written and well-argued, it doesn't break new ground, but helped me clarify my own approach to problematic artists. Also he doesn't address boycotts and other community actions.
Read
November 5, 2025看完不太好說得出內容想要表達的意思....
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews