Avery Cheeseman, arts and culture editor

I know that I am far from the only person who grew up watching and reading the Harry Potter books and movies. As I grew and morphed into my teenage years, my interest in this series grew and morphed into the Marauders spinoff fandom. This piece of media has been in the public zeitgeist for nearly 27 years. This coming winter, the new series remake will be released on Dec. 26. 

My feelings on this series have greatly changed the more that I have grown and built up a better repertoire of literary works that I enjoy far more than this series. However, beyond the very real literary critiques of J. K. Rowling’s writing, world-building, and sprinklings of casual bigotry, there lies a question that I find extremely imperative to answer. Can we actually separate the art from the artist?

This question has been floating around the internet for the last few months as we all wait to collectively see what to make of the new TV series based on Rowling’s original book series. Over the past few years, Rowling’s first casual bigoted tweets against trans women have evolved into full-on support of transphobic campaigns and organizations that are fighting against the rights of trans people in the UK. Rowling created her own personal fund called “J.K. Rowling Women’s Fund” that is directly funded by the wealth she garnered through her book sales, merchandise sales and movies. It is not possible to separate the art from the artist in this case, as the art is actively funding the artist’s transphobic tirade that has real implications on the lives of trans people within the UK. 

According to Augsburg student Klaus Solko, “I’ve seen people talk about separating the art from the artist when the artist is dead.” As Rowling is still alive, this sentiment is rendered inapplicable. The next question of separation lies within the artwork. According to Solko, “their prejudice is in their work; you’re not separating it.” Solko goes on to tell me that “the work cannot be separated ideologically from what they believe because their ideology is in their work.” Rowling is neither dead nor is her work free from the bigoted ideology that is quite literally found within the words that she has written in her books.

Having discussions about the ethics of the art we consume is an extremely important thing that we must continue to do. If the art we love is actively supporting bigotry and hate or has this sort of ideology written clear as day in its pages, we are most certainly responsible for aiding in its wake of destruction. We must examine art and media that we put our money, time, and energy towards, as it has real-life implications beyond just the pages of our favorite books. When an author or artist is actively using the wealth they accrued to support organizations that go directly against our own values, we must re-examine our support.