This is my final essay for my English class. I need to cite at least three outside sources from high-quality and trusted academic sources or from respected magazines, newspapers, etc. A naysayer argument should be included. Paraphrasing is preferred over quoting unless the exact quote matters. MLA formatted, works cited page.
This is the prompt I am answering:
“Many well-known music artists have been accused of serious crimes like sexual assault, pedophilia, or other forms of violence. Recently, listeners have begun to question whether or not these artis’ music should be played or sold or whether or not they should be uspported when they perform live. Research this topic and inform your read about it. Then, make an argument about how you think listeners should respond to artists accused of serious crimes. Should listeners separate the artists and their actions and continue to consume their music? Or should listeners refuse to consume their music and stop financially supporting these artists?”
This is my opening paragraph, feel free to tweak it:
“Separate the art from the artist”: a statement to defend the integrity of a revered creative piece from its creator’s not-so-revered character. It is an old, ever-recurring sentiment applied to every art form one could name. Pablo Picasso had a habit of preying on underage women, but his genius in cubism and (ex. Guernica) surrealism is revered. Despite J.K. Rowling’s radical views on the topic of the transgender community, the world of Harry Potter is still home to many LGBTQ+ and their allies. Although this may seem like a simple solution, there have been many calls to reject it entirely. It is safe to assume that generally, bad behavior reaps a consequence. For the general public, allegations of sexual misconduct, instances of hate speech, or violence can strip one of their livelihood. One could be suspended from school or be barred from a job. While it may seem obvious to hold artists to the same standard, the debate of art vs. artist remains prevalent in the music industry, where the occurrence of a controversial, yet influential artist is unfortunately common. It spawns a few questions; does listening to a song condone the creator’s actions? If we were to boycott them, what is its true impact? After examining several controversial artists, their actions and their respective repercussions, it is clear that boycotting problematic artists and looking for alternatives is how we as consumers can ensure that artists are not above the social and financial repercussions of their behavior.
Here are some points for paragraphs I want to hit , rearrange them or remove them however to make the essay flow better:
Argue that artists/celebrities do not face the financial and social repercussions for their actions as a normal person does (ex. Kanye West -> antisemitism , Chris Brown -> domestic violence/assault, Nicki -> married to sex offender and silences SA victims, Azealia Banks, etc.)
How streaming music supports the artists (monetary/social advertising)
The intended effects of boycotting an artist to hold them accountable (industry response, social response, artist’s apology and reformation)
The consequences of failing to hold an artist accountable on society: Kanye West
Although listening to a song from a controversial artist doesn’t make someone a bad person, we should find alternative ways to enjoy the music we like without supporting the artist, or just alternative artists entirely
source for boycotting: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30162004
source for kanye west controversy: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0388000114001284
source for nicki minaj: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-13317111/Nicki-Minajs-husband-Kenneth-Petty-asks-court-let-tour-Europe-babysit-son-three-remains-probation-sex-offender-registry-violation.html
feel free to pull from more sources
