Is it Possible to Separate the Art from the Artist? A Discussion with CJ Farley

Talking about the "Michael" movie, humanity, AI and more with a top author and culture critic

Jun 04, 2026

I had lunch with CJ Farley in early May and a Substack Live soon after. The in-person meeting helped make the virtual one even better. Here are just *some* of CJ’s books.

🙏 Bonus discussions like this one are only possible with the support of our paid subscribers and sponsors. The plan is to keep the main newsletter completely free for all, and to do that, we need all the support we can get. Soon, these bonus items, along with exclusive IRL and Zoom events will be available only to paid subscribers.

Want to pitch in? There are many ways you can (including running ads for your next event, book release, etc).

Support Us

My full interview with CJ Farley:

FEW PEOPLE KNOW MORE about the entertainment industry than CJ Farley. He is a prolific author and writer; has worked as TIME’s music critic; has been a senior editor/executive at WSJ, PBS and Audible; and he is a wealth of insight on humanity, the arts, AI, and so much more. Our discussion last month is educational for people of various ages.

The new “Michael” film, about Michael Jackson’s life was our natural jumping-off point—Jackson is the elemental form of the “separate the art from the artist” discussion. It’s made more than $830 million globally, behind only “Oppenheimer” ($977 million; 2023) and “Bohemian Rhapsody” ($911 million; 2018) as the biggest biopic of all time.

In 2023, I went to see “MJ: The Musical” on Broadway, whose book writer/librettist (the playwright responsible for the show's story, character development, and spoken dialogue) is two-time Pulitzer winner, Lynn Nottage. In the opening minutes, MJ is asked a question by an MTV reporter who has secured rare access to interview Jackson during his 1992 rehearsals for the Dangerous world tour. “Can you separate the singer from the music?” Back in 1992, the query was about his “Wacko Jackson” persona (changing his appearance, hanging out with a chimpanzee, sleeping in an oxygen chamber, etc, etc, etc) and not about the first public charges of child abuse that would come the following year).

Jackson was the most famous person on Earth for a long time, and his artistic library stands up well. But the question remains: “Can you separate the art from the artist.”

CJ captured this so well in our discussion, and really shone a critic’s light on the film’s great omissions—all of the many things we don’t know, all of the stories that haven’t been told. This is a brilliant couple of minutes:

CJ would know a thing or ten about the things “Michael” leaves out—he produced an in-depth, documentary-style podcast on Michael Jackson in 2023. I am on episode 10 right now of “Think Twice” (a reference to the immortal line from “Billie Jean”: Just remember to always think twice) and I don’t want it to end.

The list of tremendously-talented-yet-problematic artists stretches for miles—Kanye West, J.K. Rowling, Kevin Spacey, to name a few contemporary examples.

But the King of Pop is the one who really captures my imagination. This is, of course, a generational thing—it is for CJ, too—but the world was different then. Screen time was finite, an artist’s ability to capture the airwaves was limited by the lack of airwaves as we think of them now. As CJ noted, Jackson’s public persona and mythos is so fascinating to reflect on, and the new film does absolutely no service to it.

“I think, whether we’re willing to admit or not, we’re willing to set things aside when an artist is so spectacularly good that we just can’t get away from that quality.”

— CJ Farley on the new “Michael” film

Jackson produced hits for decades. He was able to create a public legend so powerful that it stood up to what were seen as credible accusations of child abuse. Everything in the new movie is just stuff we already know, and that’s too bad.

In July 2009, Noam Cohen wrote in the NYT about my unusual experience in dealing with the news of the death of Jackson (gift link).

CJ’s latest novel was labeled “the first great AI novel” (not by AI, about AI), by Walter Isaacson. “Who Knows You by Heart” deals with fundamental questions updated to fit our current societal perils and opportunities in waiting. Here’s a quick synopsis:

The review from The New York Times [gift link] was a positive one—read this passage and understand the relevance of a work of fiction like this:

“Who Knows You by Heart” is a very entertaining and ambitious mash-up of genres: thriller, science fiction and romance. The story moves at a fast pace, propelled by its suspenseful plot, with reflections throughout about Black music, the undiscussed Black origins of much of the technology we use and more. While occasionally clunky, these digressions are not without thematic meaning — they serve as a reminder of the invisible Black labor that has built our modern social infrastructure. The novel is funny too, though, with running bits about the abbreviation D.E.I., a side character’s obsession with Luddites, and jabs about the cringe-inducing behaviors of tech culture.

We can’t talk about a technology like AI without talking about labor, bias, and the people who have built the foundations of it all. AI’s future is far from decided, and it’s up to us to both understand the technology, and the ramifications of its existence.

As I noted in the clip above, I was shocked to learn firsthand how China is deploying AI versus the American consumer-first version I see at home—the two are almost polar opposites in many ways (my thoughts on a five-country, 24-day AI training tour of Asia).

CJ and I spoke the week of Stephen Colbert’s final episode (a clip about that is at the top of my essay, “On Colbert’s Exit, The Church, and Solidarity.

A couple of last thoughts about “separating the art from the artist.” I have been torn about what to do about some excellent movies I want my kids to watch someday, including the classics directed by Woody Allen (🤢) and “Shakespeare in Love,” which was produced by Harvey Weinstein (🤮). A thoughtful 24yo I know offered this compelling framing: “If the person is dead and unable to benefit personally from their art, maybe it’s OK to consume it?” What do you think?