Should We Separate the Art from the Artist?

By: Sheza Qasim, Assistant Editorial Director Edited by: Marissa Wrubleski

When the average person does something wrong (like committing a crime or being accused of something), the consequences are final. A job is lost, reputation’s damaged, and recovery is slow—if at all. But in the world of fame, the rules seem different. Celebrities (and even convicted criminals) can re-enter the public eye, rebuild careers, and regain large audiences. The question isn’t just why it happens, but why society allows it.

The most obvious example of this is Chris Brown. Notably, he pleaded guilty to assaulting his then-girlfriend Rihanna in 2009, resulting in a sentence of five years' probation, community service, and mandatory domestic violence counseling.

In June 2017, actress, model and his ex-girlfriend, Karrueche Tran was granted a five-year restraining order against him. Tran testified that he threatened to kill her, make her life hell, and was physically abusive in the past. 

Though there have been numerous proclaimed “downfalls” of his career, Brown never really went away. He still has 144 million followers on Instagram and is still selling out arenas, even going on tour with fellow R&B singer Usher this summer. 

Another example is Woody Allen, who has been accused of sexually assaulting his adopted daughter in 1992 when she was seven years old. The allegations resurfaced publicly in 2014 and 2018, with Allen consistently denying them, alleging they were concocted during a custody battle.

While the accusations led to tangible consequences, most notably Amazon backing out of a distribution deal, stating it would not release his films domestically or internationally—his career has not fully disappeared. Allen has continued to make films and retain a following, particularly among international audiences. Like Chris Brown, Allen’s case highlights how public backlash does not always translate into lasting exile.

But, realistically, what can we do to “cancel” these celebrities? The answer is less dramatic than the term suggests. “Canceling” isn’t a single action, it’s a collection of small, individual choices that only matter if they happen at a large scale. Audiences can stop streaming music, unfollow social media accounts, and choose not to buy tickets or support projects. In theory, this kind of collective withdrawal should make a measurable impact.

In practice, however, cancellation rarely sticks. For every listener who stops streaming an artist like Chris Brown, millions continue to do so. Algorithms continue to promote what is already popular, and controversy itself often fuels visibility rather than diminishing it. The result is a cycle where outrage generates attention, and attention sustains relevance.

Real consequences tend to come not from audiences, but from institutions, record labels, studios, and corporate partners. When companies pull funding or distribution, as Amazon did with Woody Allen, the effects are immediate and tangible. But even these decisions are inconsistent, often driven more by public relation concerns than ethical standards.

As long as there is still an audience willing to separate the art from the artist, or ignore the allegations entirely, true cancellation remains unlikely.

© 2026 by FETCH COLLECTIVE