During the Superbowl, viewers were appalled when Kanye West aired a Superbowl ad for his brand, Yeezy, which led audiences to his website, where one item was displayed: a white shirt with a swastika on the front. While West has previously made antisemitic remarks on social media platform X, this blatant display of hatred was the final straw for many longtime fans of his music.
In light of the rapper’s abhorrent actions, many fans are finally deleting West’s music from their playlists and throwing out their Yeezy slippers. Some voiced their concern on social media platform X, with one fan writing “Boycott Kanye… I don’t wanna call him Ye cuz he ain’t deserve that. WE DON’T DESERVE THIS KANYE.” But this conflict raises the question: at what point does consumption of a problematic artist’s material become unethical?
The idea of separating the art from the artist is not a new one. In fact, it’s an issue that’s been raised time and time again because, as history shows, being a genius or visionary doesn’t make someone a good person. Take Salvador Dali, the most prolific surrealist of the 20th century. His works are undoubtedly revolutionary, but Dali himself was an arrant racist, who suggested in a 1935 letter that all non-white races should be enslaved.
Art enthusiasts will also be disappointed to know that Pablo Picasso, co-founder of the cubist movement was a manipulative person who serially exploited the women in his life, dating 17-year-old Marie-Therese Walter when he was 45.
Does this mean that Dali and Picasso’s works should be removed from museums? Instead of disregarding their work completely, it might be a more productive approach to view their work with the knowledge in mind that their problematic attitudes influenced their creations. After all, both artists are dead and can’t profit from our actions. But what do you do when the artist is still alive, and can directly benefit from your support?
As recent years have shown, the entertainment industry is a breeding ground for corruption, in which artists can easily escape accountability through power and influence. We see this through popular singer Chris Brown, who was accused countless times of violent behavior and aggression towards women, the most notable being his 2009 conviction for assault on ex-girlfriend Rihanna. Since then, Brown received countless allegations for battery and a restraining order towards ex-girlfriend Karrueche Tran- but his career has continued to thrive. At the 2025 Grammys, Brown received the best R&B album award, and continues to sell out shows.
Why, after countless indicators of his low moral fiber, does Brown continue to receive the adoration and support of not only male but also female fans, who seemingly ignore all his previous wrongdoings? Some might make the argument that his music is just that good, and that it adds significant value to their lives. In the case of Kanye West, many make this argument.
For good and bad, streaming platforms like Spotify pay pennies to artists, so that avenue is relatively harm-free. But when it comes to buying merchandise and concert tickets, things that directly increase the wealth and power of the problematic artist, that’s where you should draw the line. After all, the 2018 #The MeToo movement showed the world that wealth is a fantastic shield for accountability, exposing predators in nearly every industry in order to bring justice to their victims. Many of these perpetrators were able to avoid legal persecution due to positions of power, allowing them to not only evade liability but continue harming employees.
Look at someone like Harvey Weinstein, who escaped culpability for sexual assault for many years due to his status in the film industry. If it weren’t for the direct support of fans and moviegoers, chances are that he would have been persecuted for his crimes far sooner. Which begs the question: how much responsibility do those who ignore, and even support the perpetrators hold in their crimes?
The truth is, as consumers, we have a responsibility to be mindful of the things we sponsor.
According to Britannica, by utilizing ethical consumerism, “the act of consumption itself becomes a political choice, not unlike voting, so that democratic values come to be exercised in the market.”
Critics of ethical consumerism say that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, but historically, boycotts have been an important agent for social change.
Many plead ignorance when it comes to being responsible with their consumption, saying that they don’t read the news or know all the details of artists’ personal lives. However, when it comes to a controversy as large as West’s, splashed over headlines and social media, it’s impossible to ignore, which forces people to reckon with their values.
I know that I have certainly enjoyed West’s music in the past, but in the poll booth of Spotify, I cast my vote against hatred. People should always put their values first, even when it requires a personal sacrifice. In a world where we want real change to happen, we have to be the catalysts, with our money and our choices. So when it comes to Kanye West – and all the other artists culpable for wrongdoing- take a step in the right direction and leave them behind, because we hold the power to devalue them in our headphones and in our wallets.
