Separating art from artist

Dionysis Savvopoulos was undoubtedly one of the most important musicians of Post-junta Greece, leaving behind a worthy legacy in the culture of our country. However, his personal views (social and political) left many with a bitter taste and aversion towards the artist and his work. But should an artist's work be identified with him? Is the work of art an extension of the creator and vice versa? Or are they separate?

As we grow up, we all change our opinions to some extent. It is a product of our experiences and a natural progression of our personal maturation. Is it radical to change from one political camp to the other? Yes, it is. However, we all have the right to change our opinions. However, in the case of Dionysis Savvopoulos, greater skepticism was to be expected. Savvopoulos was an artist who was tortured by the junta and began his artistic career intertwined with the left. Any conversion of his was to be met with such treatment. And indeed it did. As he himself stated in an interview, he said that the worst period of his life was not the torture by the junta but the period after “Haircut” (the album with which he broke his relationship with the left).

The result, therefore, of this album (but also of Savvopoulos' statements, more recently, e.g., the support of Kyriakos Mitsotakis and New Democracy party in 2019) was the alteration of the opinion of many people of the artist's work as a whole. For some, his songs against the junta no longer have the same emotional charge, written by a man who ended up leaving the left for the right. For others, his "betrayal" made them not want to listen to his work anymore, either out of disgust or so that they would not feel that they were supporting him (financially or morally). Thus, the artist and his work become identical concepts and the fall of one has a similar effect on the other.

The phenomenon is found everywhere in the world, especially in the era of political correctness and cancel culture. A striking example internationally is J.K. Rowling, author of Harry Potter, who, with some of her statements that were considered transphobic, many decided to boycott her work. In her native country, for many, her films and books have become taboo and speaking out in favor of the author's work is met with suspicion and anger. In this way, however, the personal separation of artist and work passes into the public sphere and the issue takes on other dimensions. Suddenly, admiring an artist's work means that you also support their personal views and behaviors. Leading the simple supporter of a work, into a social pariah.

This transition from the personal to the collective is dangerous. Because it brings censorship and lack of artistic freedom. Sometimes it also leads to the unsightly. Society and culture owe nothing to an artist with low-quality work but a pleasant personal life. On the other hand, of course, it must respect quality work even if the artist is undesirable.

Because the beautiful, the provocative, and the qualitative are self-existent. The Mona Lisa does not need Da Vinci's signature to determine its value. The "zeibekiko" does not need to have Savvopoulos' name on it to be a masterpiece. And we do not need to limit ourselves in the choice of works we enjoy, simply because we disagree with their creators. In fact, we owe it to our culture not to allow others to dictate which works we can and cannot enjoy.

Dionysis Savvopoulos was a great artist and as such we must honor him. If someone wants to claim him as a hero or enemy of his respective political space, this comes second to his legacy. Because his work transcended politics, even though it was deeply political. And how can you hide from this fact? "Everyone knows it anyway." (quote from his song: "Τι έπαιξα στο Λαύριο")