Art not the artist

Where does this sit in relation to the argument around AI and the soul?

(Bardot - MGM; Diddy: Netflix; Neil Gaiman image credit: Kyle Cassidy)

There is a brilliant video currently going viral of the author Rebecca Kuang talking to TV presenter Krishnan Guru-Murthy about AI and how it cannot replace authors. To paraphrase, Kuang articulately says how literature is based on an individual communicating the otherwise inaccessible contents of their mind to a person who is not them, and how the subjective aspect of that process is what produces greatness. AI can only replicate what already exists from the patchwork thoughts of other people - it doesn’t have a singular consciousness in the way human beings do.

When it comes to discussing AI and how it cannot replace humans when it comes to making art, this is the lynchpin of the entire argument. A person’s soul and consciousness - something that is uniquely individual and a part of them - has a significant and irreplaceable part to play in what they create.

I’ve been thinking a lot about this stance and how it contradicts the other argument that people use when they continue to listen to music, read books or consume any other kind of art made by people who have done or said monstrous things - which is that they ‘separate the art from the artist’. Very often, it is uttered by people to shut down perceived judgement by other people for continuing to listen to music created by paedophiles, or watching shows written by rapists.

All of this of course, has been sparked by the recent death of Brigitte Bardot and the whitewashing of her character in fashion media obituaries citing her as an icon and animal-rights activist, despite being convicted numerous times for inciting racial hatred. Given that in the last two years, I’ve witnessed race-related protests and riots by the far-right in my own country, and have experienced racial abuse over the course of my life, you’ll forgive me if I don’t yaas queen her contributions to hair and eyeliner, or celebrate her valuing the rights of animals over people of colour, immigrants and Muslims.

She was not one for the girlies either - saying that women claiming to be victims of sexual harassment in the film industry were making a big deal about nothing and it was just ‘flirting’. I’ve also been thinking about it before that, fuelled by watching the Diddy documentary on Netflix, the recent claims around David Walliams and last year, the allegations around Neil Gaiman ahead of the second season of The Sandman that aired in the summer of 2025.

‘Art not the artist’ removes the art and places it on a shelf that is perceived to sit beyond these crimes. As if the making of it was divine, even though the hands that shaped it were mortal. Hands that in some cases, have done some awful, awful things.

For a long time, I didn’t think too hard about it, and truthfully, I didn’t want to waste my energy debating it. In recent years, I’ve watched people point fingers about some who use brands that may be on the BDS boycott list (I am pro-boycott but acknowledge I am not always going to do it perfectly) and while yes, it’s one thing for people to take money from these brands to promote them (think Stormzy and McDonalds), it is tricky territory to scream at someone for using a particular beauty brand or drink a certain beverage, because no one has a squeaky clean record around these things. Consider that the vast majority of smartphones are not made with ethically sourced minerals, or the many other things people use from software operating systems to streaming services have murky origins.

When it comes to judging what or who someone watches or listens to therefore, it is similarly tough and often hypocritical work. Is one charge of sexual harassment okay, or does it have to be multiple claims? If someone is accused of domestic violence, what extent are we talking about before we cancel their work? On one end there is cancel culture and on the other end there is a localised amnesia around horrific crimes and both seem unhelpful.

When we remove the performative aspect around things eg what our choices seem to say about us, what honest conversations are we having with ourselves about what we are okay with? There is no right and wrong, but I do think the question merits asking especially if we have a nostalgic connection to the person in question.

Consider that anyone who consumes art has the right to define what that looks like to them. In the book world - and one would assume by extension other creative industries - an author is forced to acknowledge that once their book becomes printed for public consumption, it ceases to exist as the author intended it. That is because it turns into a work that is interpreted, and by consuming it, a reader has ownership of their own understanding of it. They do not own the author, but they own the feelings the book has generated as a result of them interacting with it. They are the part that completes the circle the author has set in motion.

In the same way that a creative person must acknowledge their desire for their work to be witnessed by an audience, I do wonder if the audience who use the ‘art not the artist’ defence are relying on a blind spot in order to make it convenient for them to extract what they need from the art.

“Most artists have skeletons in their closets, don’t they?” a friend said, and I replied that I don’t think we want moral perfection from the people who create the things we love to consume. All of us are flawed, and some of us aren’t nice people. But there is a difference between being unpleasant, and being a criminal who has wilfully tried to hurt other people, isn’t there?

I fear I am raising more questions than I am answering but it begs the question: if we are saying that AI cannot replace an artist’s soul, how can we then cauterise the parts of their soul that are grotesque, that have undoubtedly gone into creating their art? It is perhaps something for us to think about individually and figure out what the limit is for us, and what we can stomach.

Please be respectful in the comments - they will be moderated.

My non-fiction book She Wanted More is out Feb 26th which explores women finding joy and empowerment, and burning down the status quo. Pre-orders are open here.

MORE FROM POORNA: