ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. — Can a visitor admire intricate works of molten glass without indirectly endorsing the ideologies or institutions that the museum’s founder supports? Can or should we separate the art from the artist?
The Imagine Museum of contemporary glass art in St. Petersburg, Florida, showcases beautiful glass sculptures, innovative installations, and creative exhibits that draw in devoted artists and curious visitors alike. But for some, the shimmer dulled after learning who stood behind the vision.
Trish Duggan, the museum’s founder, is a top donor for the Church of Scientology and the Republican party, giving MAGA Inc. more than five million dollars in the 2024 election cycle. In Feb. 2025, Donald Trump appointed 14 New Kennedy Center Trustees, one of whom was Duggan.
“I was honestly a bit surprised,” said Dominick Elliott, a Tampa Bay resident who holds opposing political views and recently visited the museum. “Learning these things about the founder definitely opened my eyes on who you support, even in the sense of something simple like visiting a museum.”
For Elliott, that realization changed more than just his impression of the building.
“Buying that ticket in some way is money going back to Trish Duggan and what she supports,” said Elliott. “I, however, will not support that.”
Elliott’s conflict echoes a broader societal debate intensified by “cancel culture” and the growing scrutiny around where consumers’ money goes when they buy products and consume media, art, or entertainment, leading to boycotts.
One recurring theme in these conversations is the role of institutions themselves. If a museum, like Imagine, houses art by various artists, does supporting the museum inherently support the founder?
“I do believe there is a way to separate the two,” Elliott said. “The founder and the artists that make the work aren’t the same people. In the moment, it’s just myself and their work. Not me and the artists.”
Elijah Conley, a sophomore musical theater and journalism major at the University of Tampa, acknowledges that museums may act more as curators of time and history rather than endorsers of every artist or founder’s beliefs.
“Museums can be neutral,” said Conley. “I think art itself isn’t.”
Conley believes art and politics are inherently connected.
“Art was created as a response to politics,” said Conley. “People make stories. They want to make people happy. If you wanna make people happy, it’s because something dark is happening.”
As an artist himself, Conley argues that you can’t truly separate the creator from the creation.
“Everything I do in my art and for every artist, subconsciously or consciously, you are actively making a decision that is what all your experience says,” Conley said.
For Conley, even the most visually stunning piece becomes tainted if its creator holds damaging ideologies.
“If an artist purposely made a … painting that has dark figures as scary beings, and that artist was a known racist, that will just forever taint the art to me no matter how beautiful it is,” said Conley, clarifying this was a hypothetical example.
Artworks like Paul Gauguin’s paintings of Tahitian women have sparked similar debates, as the aesthetic appeal is complicated by the artist’s troubling personal history and the colonial gaze embedded in the work.
From a neuroscientific perspective, the answer seems to lean toward no, you can’t separate them, at least not easily.
Hannah Kaube, a PhD candidate at the Institute for Neurocognitive Psychology in Berlin, said our brains process knowledge about an artist so rapidly that it reshapes how we perceive their work.
“Participants tended to like the artwork less and rated it more harshly in terms of quality when they were aware of negative information about the artist,” Kaube said of her research with Dr. Rasha Abdel Rahman, a professor in the Department of Psychology at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.
Brain activity measured through neurocognitive measures (EEG) revealed that this influence occurs “rapidly and automatically,” impacting both emotional and aesthetic judgment, said Kaube.
In other words, whether we like it or not, external context and knowledge about the artist often shape how we perceive their work.
Not everyone draws a hard line, though. Olivia Robertson, a sophomore majoring in emerging media and character animation at the University of Central Florida, said her reaction depends on the context.
“There have been artists that I previously loved … but finding out they had done something so terrible … I now find that I can’t resonate with that work in the same way,” said Robertson.
Still, she distinguishes between collaborative efforts and individual creations, noting that some works can be done by a team of people and are not defined by one contributor’s beliefs.
Robertson emphasizes the importance of media literacy.
“Everyone should reflect on why art makes them feel the way it does, and how it could be influencing other people’s beliefs,” Robertson said.
To Robertson, art can be entertaining, challenging, or both, but viewers have a responsibility to think critically.
“Controversial art does have the power to start conversations around social change. … Just thinking critically about art and its intention is a skill everyone should practice,” said Robertson.
Whether viewers walk away inspired or disillusioned, the conversation doesn’t end at the museum doors. The next time you stand before a sculpture or a painting, you might ask yourself not just what you’re looking at but who you’re looking through.
–
Photos courtesy of Alyssa Cortes.