Can we separate the artist from the art?

[stlukesguild]

quote: intergrity- In this particular case, I cannot separate the writer from his writing. Just as if Karl Rove or Dick Cheney wrote the most well-written fiction book loosely based on all the great things they've done for middle east, or if Michael Vick was the most eloquent writer on the planet, I would read none of their books because they are major jerks/idiots who lack the slightest amount of empathy or compassion and possess an acute disrespect for their fellow living creatures. These type of folks have nothing of value to impart to me at this time of my life. It's not about whether an author's life (in this case Hemingway's) was exciting or boring, it's about the moral character of the individual himself/herself. It permeates and shines through in a writer's works... if the person appears to have a bloodthirsty streak for needlessly hurting fellow creatures, then that person more than likely has nothing meaningful to impart to me. It indicates a severe lack of depth in their perception of life.

Integrity brings into play an intriguing question. Can we separate the artist from the art? Can a real a@#hole produce great art? Do we find it impossible to divorce who the artist was from what the artist did? I'm interested in hearing other's thoughts on this topic before I post my own.

[JBI]

Depends who; I enjoy Pound, despite his streak of fascism/Nazism. Mashima's prose is still excellent, despite his peculiar politics.

It would depend who; Hitler, of course could not be read as an artist of aesthetic merit (though I hear Mien Kampf isn't very good anyway). But hey, Shakespeare tells us that style is everything. How many people cheer for Macbeth, and hoped he would win on the first read? I'm sure some of us. How many can't help but sympathize?

In truth, every anti-hero can be made likable by the way he is presented, so if we take Filippo Lippi for instance, and present him as some sort of vow-breaking lustful pervert, who broke his vows to the church in order to marry a nun - causing her to break her vows as well - then we can look down on him, and his art.

Fortunately, history took the art's side, and we remember that as a romance, rather than a heresy, and a triumph of love, rather than a disrespect for god.

Perception is everything, as, you probably know, is the definition of aesthetics. IF we see an artist as repellent, than we will see his art as repellent, if we simply ignore it (Beethoven, Byron, Picasso) then we simply just enjoy the art. It depends what sort of streak the artist has against them.

[Etienne]

One word: Entirely.

[John Goodman]

I've always been able to. Unfortunately, most can't. As much as I don't want to bring film as an example on a book forum, it happens much more in that field. Someone like Tom Cruise who is an incredible actor will likely only be remembered as a scientologist psycho because of his off-camera antics. Robert Downey Jr. is a great actor who got in trouble with cocaine and prostitutes but people tend to only remember what he was arrested for, not the great roles he had prior to that.

[integrity]

LOL! Oh dear, what I have I started?!

Note that I never said that an a-hole can't write well. Certainly they can. It's just that on a personal/subjective level I feel that I more than likely will not take away anything meaningful from what the person has to say. It's a personal choice. I won't waste my time reading books (no matter how well-worded) that lack depth or insight into those things in which I am currently interested.

Look, I am a vegan and believe in non-violence. That might explain a lot about my revulsion to Hemingway's hunting, bullfighting, and war hawking. Most people (I would imagine) choose to read literature that they relate to and from the particular angle at which they see the world. In one of his books (Desert Solitaire), Edward Abbey writes about how he beaned a small mammal with a rock just to see if he could. I wasn't thrilled with that. But that doesn't take away from the fact that he wrote incredibly well, and on top of that (unlike Hemingway) he made a difference in the world around him; his ideas had a real impact on the conservation of nature. Jack London was a boxer and a boxing fan, but that didn't take away from the fact that Call of the Wild was an incredible story. He also sailed with a ship that hunted seals (though he later rightly called it "slaughter" and "one species destroying another for the sake of fashion").

I'm not trying to downplay what I wrote in my post; I'm simply trying to put it into context. It's about choice. Life is short. Really short. I can only read so much in one lifetime. I'm becoming a bit more choosy, and don't often randomly pick up a novel and read it spontaneously, like I used to when I was younger. I'm not just interested in great writing; I want to hopefully read literature that imparts some substance, knowledge, or meaning about life (Siddhartha is a good example). As I said in my post on the other thread, I had already read Hemingway's books when I was young and disliked them very much; I found his writing to be superficial, boring, and devoid of prosaic beauty. I was debating whether to read his novels again now, in hope that I would find some meaning in them that I did not when I was younger. But reading about his exploits into hunting and such, tipped the scales against his favor. His seemingly bloodthirsty nature might account for the fact that I did not enjoy his writing the first time around. An author's outlook on life is often reflected in his writing. I'm not interested in reading works by someone who cares not a jot for his fellow creatures. Not worth my time.

[stlukesguild]

I bring the question up because it is certainly true that many cannot separate the artist from the art. In a way, it relates to the notion of the "cult of personality". In most medieval art... and most ancient art... and a good deal of the art from non-Western cultures the artist is often anonymous. The art is what matters. Of course the shift took place with the Renaissance... especially in the visual arts... where individuals of great ability and innovation began to be recognized... and their products desired over that of others. On the negative side this leads to the valuation of mediocre... or even poor works of art and literature by acknowledged "masters" over very good... even great works of art by unknown or less-well-known artists. A painting by a minor artist as well-known as Andy Warhol... a work probably not even produced by his own efforts... often attains prices at auction in the 10s of millions or dollars... while an absolutely masterful example of a Persian miniature, a Japanese woodblock print, or marvelous Pre-Columbian ceramic piece might only expect to achieve a price that even I could afford. What is often valued is the artist's star status... celebrity... cult of personality... over the actual work.

When the artist has a great life story... such as that of Van Gogh... the value of the work rises ever higher. But what of the artist whose reputation is besmirched? Michael Jackson's career will never be the same... regardless of what he does as a performer. So what of a figure such as Caravaggio?


-The Death of the Virgin


-The Deposition

Historically, Caravaggio is an absolute giant. He can be virtually credited with having given birth to the Baroque era... ending the tired, ossified distortions of Mannerism and bringing naturalism and realism back to art with a vengeance. His paintings are magnificent. Bold. Incredibly dramatic. Explosive. At times violent. Often, as in the above examples, quite moving. And yet this artist began his career pandering erotic images of young boys to high-ranking pedophile clergy. He had a police record that included repeated fights, brawls, and public drunkenness... ending in the murder of an opponent during a duel resulting from an argument over a tennis match. How does one look at the art then... in light of such knowledge?

Of course... in this instance what the artist expresses is still unquestionably beautiful... in spite of who the artist was. But what of those instances in which what the artist says or conveys goes completely against what we believe? There are many Christian faithful, for example, who would not be able to appreciate the writings of Islam (the Qur'an, etc...) or Buddhism. But what of ourselves? I think especially of two examples of film. D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation... which in many ways developed or solidified much of the visual language of film... is also quite racist in what it conveys. Leni Riefenstahl created two incredible films, The Triumph of the Will and Olympia, that included innovations in the use of telephoto lenses, distortions of perspective, moving cameras, aerial photography, cinematography and the integration of music in film. The first film, however, was a propaganda film for Nazi Germany with Adolf Hitler credited as producer, while the second included footage and documentation of the 1936 Berlin Olympics. So what does one make of these?

[Etienne]

What does one do of the writing of Julius Caesar? A man whose karma is very far from being clean.

I see denigrating a work based on the artist quite on the same level (let's say methodologically speaking) as denigrating a child based on his parents, it just doesn't make sense to me.

[mortalterror]

Look, I am a vegan and believe in non-violence. That might explain a lot about my revulsion to Hemingway's hunting, bullfighting, and war hawking.

Basically, what I drew from those remarks and your previous polemic against Rove and Cheney was "I'm a liberal who doesn't like conservatives." It must be some life loving animals and trees when you can't stand the other people you share this planet with. About 30% of this country is conservatives, so good luck with that attitude. I'm sure it won't cause you any difficulties. As for me, I like hamburgers, and shotguns, and bloodsports, and I don't feel the least bit bad about any one of them.

So what of a figure such as Caravaggio?

Of course... in this instance what the artist expresses is still unquestionably beautiful... in spite of who the artist was. But what of those instances in which what the artist says or conveys goes completely against what we believe? There are many Christian faithful, for example, who would not be able to appreciate the writings of Islam (the Qur'an, etc...) or Buddhism. But what of ourselves? I think especially of two examples of film. D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation... which in many ways developed or solidified much of the visual language of film... is also quite racist in what it conveys. Leni Riefenstahl created two incredible films, The Triumph of the Will and Olympia, that included innovations in the use of telephoto lenses, distortions of perspective, moving cameras, aerial photography, cinematography and the integration of music in film. The first film, however, was a propaganda film for Nazi Germany with Adolf Hitler credited as producer, while the second included footage and documentation of the 1936 Berlin Olympics. So what does one make of these?

I think I've mentioned before that Caravaggio is my favorite painter. It doesn't matter to me at all that he was a murderer. As far as Leni Reifenstahl goes, Triumph of the Will had some very interesting scenes but mostly I was just bored by it. Political conventions don't tend to interest me. However, the shot of Hitler arriving in his plane like a god coming down through the clouds is so excellent it's in most film textbooks alongside of Sergei Eisenstein's stairway massacre sequence from his communist propaganda film Battleship Potemkin. Reifenstahl also impressed me with her Olympia, particularly the shots of divers leaping from their boards, up into the air and never hitting the water. Arms out, shot against the sky, they look like birds flying. It's breathtaking.

[Jozanny]

I have to draw the line at Birth of a Nation, whatever its merits. 19th century America was a horrible place for Africian Americans, and to think it has taken well over a hundred years after the Civil War to even begin to crack the apartheid barriers in the States is appalling.

But the issue you frame isn't necessarily an easy one. I find on LitNet that there is too much concern about an author's *place*, and it drives me rather crazy that members obsess over this without much room for context.

You formed this thread due to a rancorous debate about Hemingway. integrity's objections are sound, but are we taking the context of his era into account? There are all kinds of tastes, and Hemingway certainly isn't the best flavor to hit my tongue, but I can take myself out of taking his measure, and look at the impact of the man in his era with a balanced cost benefit analysis. Can we do that? Acknowledge context as well as strengths and detractions? Geez.

[mortalterror]

I found the diving sequence from Riefenstahl's Olympia on Youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwmYFz01MxA
If you have a greater knowledge of her work beyond the hearsay, you'll see that her subject was never really National Socialism but the human form, particularly her fascination with the male form, often portrayed in the semi-nude. Even in Triumph of the Will, an overtly political film, there are some rather lengthy scenes of young men exercising and playing at sports.

[Michigan J Frog]

The artist is always in the art. Does an artist's experience influence his writings? of course. But personally, I don't care how big of an a hole an artist was during his life if I like his writings, if he created art. If I thought Hemingway's writings were art and if I enjoyed it a lot, I wouldn't care what kind of a person he was during his life.
A lot of writers in the past did things that would be considered immoral, are you going to ignore their writings altogether? Or are you the judge of just how immoral their actions and what kind of behavior were acceptable?

[Gibran]

Absolutely. An artist is just what he creates, not who he lives for. Satre and Dostoevsky
are more to me than ones like Maxim Gorky. But the fact is always that bad life makers wrote bad works too, that's something disappointing.

[book_jones]

There also seems to be a somewhat opposite problem related to this idea. That is when people read too much into a person based on their writings. People often take fiction to reflect a writer's personality and beliefs with 100 percent accuracy. There are so many legends about Poe which are mostly based on the types of stories and poems he wrote. I believe that this is related to what you're talking about.

[Qaphqa]

If the question is whether or not you can enjoy a work by an artist whose own life or personality you find repellent, then I'd say you certainly can.

If the question is, however, whether or not you can analyze a work independently of its creator (or, in the case of anonymous works, the creator's location and time period) I'd have to say no.

Say for example there's a book concerning the failings of a man who happens to be Jewish. If you know that the author is anti-Semitic, it would be very easy to dismiss the book as Nazi propaganda/a disgusting carricature of a Jewish person. However, if you know the author is Jewish, then you may search for autobiographical elements, or possible signs of Jewish self-loathing within the book.

[integrity]

Basically, what I drew from those remarks and your previous polemic against Rove and Cheney was "I'm a liberal who doesn't like conservatives." It must be some life loving animals and trees when you can't stand the other people you share this planet with. About 30% of this country is conservatives, so good luck with that attitude. I'm sure it won't cause you any difficulties. As for me, I like hamburgers, and shotguns, and bloodsports, and I don't feel the least bit bad about any one of them.

Mentioning some of the particulars of my lifestyle was not to offer you ammunition to personally insult me and make erroneous generalizations about my character, of which you know nothing. It was to illustrate the context in which my comments were made. If your conscience is deep in denial, tend to it on your own time.