Separating the creator from the creation?

[Shnate McDuanus]

Here's a question for anyone who's interested: should an individual's works be judged separately from his quality of character? In other words, should we assign values to a work or piece of intellectual property respective of the creator's intent, or should we judge their works irrespective of their personal character? Is it acceptable to judge, for example, Thoreau's Walden based on the degree to which Thoreau led the life he described, or the poetry of Walt Whitman based on the intent under which it was written?

 

I know my own opinions on the subject--I'm curious as to what others may think, especially because it seems as though certain creators (the ones in my mind who stick out are Thoreau, Whitman and Hemingway) whose legacy as individuals indelibly color popular opinions on their works, and the validity of their creations are judged (perhaps unfairly) based on elements of their personal character. It's also worth it, to me, to gain an appreciation for other perspectives. I mean, if your perspective is wildly different from my own, I want to know about it and about why it is. I'll reveal my own opinions later, so as not to color the discussion before it begins proper.

 

The same often applies to music--i.e. people tend to regard Django Reinhardt as especially great because he performed unique music while being disabled in a way that would hinder most guitarists incapable of playing (and I am not attempting to discount the value of his works) but do we place emphasis on his work because it is special in and of itself, or because it was done under peculiar circumstances? Many tend to regard Robert Johnson as one of the finest blues musicians who ever lived, but is he regarded as such because of the quality of his music itself, or due to the mystique that surrounds his personality? Likewise, there are many people out there who dislike a certain artist (Led Zeppelin REALLY comes to mind in this case) not because of their music, but because of certain external factors (i.e. the notions that they were plagiarists, pedophiles, etc.) which very strongly color their opinions. There are people who refuse to listen to Gary Moore because he allegedly owns Ronnie Montrose's stolen guitar, and others who dislike him because Steve is so obsessed with him. Again, question your preconceptions--do you base your opinion on the quality of the art or the quality of the artist, and is this the way you think it ought to be?

[freak show]

I like beer.

 

And I don't care who makes it.

[charlie brown]

I (personally) think it depends on the circumstances, and time period, one (the viewer, listener, reader) is in. If you're talking about artists, that work in your current times, it's ALL

applicable, and a part of who they are, what they believe is always a part of their art. In the case of historical, that's also true, but with artists that are now gone, their art will (seemingly) stand more on it's own...because you may have less knowledge about them. Even when you read about their lives, and "beliefs," you still polute that, with your own interpretations, and prejudices. I always see a movie, or listen to a musical artist, based (first) on what I like, and/or what I might feel would be intesting, and/or even challenging...quite often WITHOUT knowing that much, about either the artist, or the circumstances invloved in it's creation, so as to have a more "pure" experience. In the case of "movies," especially...I much prefer to see a flim, prior to reading any "critic's analysis, so as not to prejudice me, in any way. It's much the same, with music, or "art." What "I" then take away, is my own reaction, without any pre-conditioning. It might be a common reaction, that other's will have, as well...but I prefer to find that out, later...rather then intially. Nowadays, with all the information we're bombarded

with, and it's sources...it's increasingly difficult to DO that. All good art, is "personal" in that the artist infuses it, with themselves...obvious, or not...IMHO. Richard Avedon (one of my favorite photographers) once said, (paraphrasing) that he always took photos, "of himself," even if the subject was a tree, or landscape, as well as his renowned portraiture, fashion or his

other commercial work. I think that's true, of most, if not all, artists...no matter the genre they work in. At least, the "good/great" ones.

But..as always, it's just my own opinion.

 

Sorry, about the weird spacing...I don't seem to be able to fix that, always. ;>(

 

CB

[retrosurfer1959]

Started college didn't you?

[Versatile]

I'll get back to you.....

 

 

 

 

 

How do existentialists get on at Passport Control?....

[cookieman15061]

Wow this should be interesting.

You threw Thoreau, Whitman and Hemingway up on this forum wall? Lets see if that sticks. lol (ummm didn't they play at Woodstock?)

 

For me personally an artist has to grab me musically first before I'll really look deeper into what motivates or inspires them.

I grew up on the Beatles. Hard Day's Night, the Saturday morning cartoons, Bubblegum cards you get the picture. As I grew up I realized some things. My politics didn't mesh with Lennon's. My religious beliefs didn't mesh with Harrisons but the songs are such a part of my being that I couldn't remove them even if I wanted to and I don't.

 

I think for me the only way this would change if I came in contact with a situation on a personal level such as my brother had.

He managed a guitar store in a big city and dealt with many big name acts. One of these performers turned out to be one of the biggest buttholes ever and not just on one occasion so ya can't just put it down to he was "having a bad day."

 

Now every time I hear him on the radio I think about my brothers experience with this guy. I've never bought another of his cds and never will.

 

For a band such as Led Zep which I neither loved nor hated the external factors never really came into play probably because there was no personal commitment on my part.

 

Sorry for the ramble.

[badbluesplayer]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. :mellow:

[saturn]

I think an artist, writer, musician etc. will initially find success based mostly on their talent. Now, how far that success goes might be influenced by their "story" so to speak. Like the example of Django. If he wasn't a very proficient musician, he wouldn't have gotten anywhere. Now once he started to become noticed with his music, I'm sure his fame grew more because of his unique way of playing with his disability.

 

Personally, I try to remain objective and not let my personal feeling color my opinion of an artists work. That goes both ways. I try to give an artist credit even if I don't care for some aspect of their personal life, and I also try to look honestly at the work of someone who I really like or that has some story to their life that makes me want them to have great success.

[Rocky4]

If it's good, it's good. Unless an artist is something horrible, like a member of the klan, I don't care what he or she does or thinks.

[Mr. Natural]

I like beer.

 

And I don't care who makes it.

 

+ 1

[SG FAN]

I don't know, an artist's personality comes in to play for me sometimes. For example I love Deep Purple's music, but Ritchie Blackmore, to me, is a pretentious ******bag. So therefore that deminishes my opinion of Deep Purple somewhat.

[Shnate McDuanus]

Started college didn't you?

 

You know it!

 

Yes, but this isn't part of an assignment, nor is it something that has developed recently as of my being in college. It's simply that the person I usually discussed these types of subjects with (my older brother) is four hours away in New York, and nobody in my residence hall seems to be interested in the question at hand.

 

Wow this should be interesting.

You threw Thoreau, Whitman and Hemingway up on this forum wall? Lets see if that sticks. lol (ummm didn't they play at Woodstock?)

 

For me personally an artist has to grab me musically first before I'll really look deeper into what motivates or inspires them.

I grew up on the Beatles. Hard Day's Night, the Saturday morning cartoons, Bubblegum cards you get the picture. As I grew up I realized some things. My politics didn't mesh with Lennon's. My religious beliefs didn't mesh with Harrisons but the songs are such a part of my being that I couldn't remove them even if I wanted to and I don't.

 

I think for me the only way this would change if I came in contact with a situation on a personal level such as my brother had.

He managed a guitar store in a big city and dealt with many big name acts. One of these performers turned out to be one of the biggest buttholes ever and not just on one occasion so ya can't just put it down to he was "having a bad day."

 

Now every time I hear him on the radio I think about my brothers experience with this guy. I've never bought another of his cds and never will.

 

For a band such as Led Zep which I neither loved nor hated the external factors never really came into play probably because there was no personal commitment on my part.

 

Sorry for the ramble.

 

First off, no need to apologize--the more comprehensive the answer, the better, I say. I mean, brevity isn't always conducive to discussion. Also, my first post was much longer, so there.

 

As far as political affiliations are concerned, I have to agree that I'm capable of appreciating a creator's work irrespective of their political opinions. I am capable of appreciating Ted Nugent (who is very far to my right) and John Lennon (who was, undoubtedly, somewhere to my left) in equal measures. I am also forgiving of artists who have been noted as particularly unkind or impolite. I have heard that Janis Joplin had notoriously poor personal conduct habits, and yet I am still genuinely enthralled by her singing. I tend to make the attempt to judge an artists work separately from their quality of character--I attempt, which isn't to say that it's always easy, or to say that I'm always capable of doing so, but I make the effort to do so, and it looks like you essentially do the same. To you, then, I ask (and I also ask myself,) is it the same to judge an artist's character as it is to judge his work? It's said that artists often put a little of themselves into all of their works, and it is likely a fair judgment to make. As such, can it be said that to judge an artist's work is to judge his character, and vice versa?

 

As for Hemingway (long regarded as a misogynist and a notorious alcoholic, who often went on drinking binges with James Joyce,) Thoreau (whose work has been questioned on the basis of his lifestyle, which was less purely isolated and deliberate than what he suggested within his work,) and Whitman (whose writing is inherently full of contradictions, and who is often known more for his eccentric personal life than for his poetry,) I have no qualms, and in fact I regard all of their works highly. Hemingway's prose style is lucid and masterful, providing an incredible degree of sophistication and an innate understanding of character and humanity, presented in a way which is vivid through its lean, purposeful sparseness. Anyone who has read The Green Hills of Africa or The Old Man and the Sea will surely attest to this description. Thoreau's work has touched my sensibilities and altered them permanently--he has largely informed my notions of spirituality, culture and self-reliance. Whitman's poetry is deeply moving, and he is, in my mind, the definitive voice of the "American" spirit, as it stood during his lifetime, and I could care less about who he wrote it for.

 

Now I ought to apologize for rambling.

 

I think an artist, writer, musician etc. will initially find success based mostly on their talent. Now, how far that success goes might be influenced by their "story" so to speak. Like the example of Django. If he wasn't a very proficient musician, he wouldn't have gotten anywhere. Now once he started to become noticed with his music, I'm sure his fame grew more because of his unique way of playing with his disability.

 

Personally, I try to remain objective and not let my personal feeling color my opinion of an artists work. That goes both ways. I try to give an artist credit even if I don't care for some aspect of their personal life, and I also try to look honestly at the work of someone who I really like or that has some story to their life that makes me want them to have great success.

 

Now, that point in regards to Django is one that I would have to agree with on a personal level, as I was captivated by his music before I knew anything about him or his now-famous disability. I will concede that if his music had not had some inherent value of its own, it likely would not have gotten off the ground--but I submit to you that not all great art is known to the public eye, nor is all work known to the public eye necessarily great art. This statement comes with its own problems, notably that "great art" is so very hard to define--and in fact it may be something which can only be defined by the individual observer, and not necessarily to be defined systematically or in any way suggesting comprehensiveness. My aforementioned statement may, in fact, be entirely meaningless, as the notion of "great art" is so vague and nebulous, and it can likewise be argued that all art is "great" to somebody.

 

As to attempting to view a work objectively and irrespective of the creative forces behind it, I can definitely relate. I tend to be fairly thorough in observing a work prior to attempting to gain a perspective on the artist or craftsperson behind it. I often find that, even for work that I dislike on an aesthetic basis (because we all have tastes for art, much as we all have tastes for food,) I'm capable of understanding and accepting its being based on the fact that it was, at the very least, created by a human being with his or her own sensibilities and personal character. I don't particularly care for most of Lady Gaga's music, but I can, at the very least, say with all conviction that I dislike it on its own basis, and not out of any judgment I can make as regards her character.

 

If it's good, it's good. Unless an artist is something horrible, like a member of the klan, I don't care what he or she does or thinks.

 

If you found yourself tapping your foot to a Johnny Rebel song, and found that you enjoyed it regardless of who the man is, would you not admit to enjoying it or force yourself to condemn it, based solely on the fact that he is well-known as a bigot? Or say, for instance, that you got your hands on Charles Manson's demo tapes, and found yourself legitimately enjoying them, would you be able to simply live with the fact that you enjoyed them? In other words, how opposed to an artist's views do you have to be in order to discredit their work? If one of Adolf Hitler's paintings captivated you like no other piece of art ever had before, would you hang a reproduction of it in your living room even though you detest the man himself? I have personally struggled with the dichotomy between an artist's views (which can be and often are radical and personally distasteful to my own sensibilities) and an artist's work (which can be great on an aesthetic basis, regardless of who created it,) so I'm curious as to whether or not we can perhaps explore this thread further. Can you reconcile taste to sensibility, and are they mutually inclusive?

 

"The Courtyard of the Old Residency in Munich" - Adolf Hitler (1914).

 

I recognize that this is a sensitive issue to this day, and I have throughout my life been very vocal in my condemnation of those involved in the Holocaust, those who brutally and systematically slaughtered six million of my own people, but I think that the issue of how one may judge a work of art (if that is indeed what this is) remains fairly important to consider. I don't intend to create a definition, but only to inspire inquiry and to test my own thoughts. As to the painting above, I cannot say that I see anything genuinely remarkable in it, but I can say that his use of color is fairly compelling, and the image is at least aesthetically pleasing to a degree, although I wouldn't necessarily call it captivating.

[NeoConMan]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. :mellow:

 

Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.

[Mr. Natural]

As far as it's possible to experience a work of art before one knows anything about the artist, one can separate the creation from the creator. However, as soon as one learns anything about the artist/creator, one will feel some degree of identity with the artist if one is of a similar ilk, or feel some disassociation from the artist if not. I think that most people's opinion of "the creation" will then be colored by their degree of empathy with, or disassociation from "the creator".

 

I think this applies to artistic/subjective stuff, so different people can have different and defendable opinions about "controversial" artists and their work. I don't think it is applicable to scientific/objective matters regardless of one's opinion of the researcher, discoverer, etc. beyond that of their capability as a researcher, discoverer, etc.

 

Or, I could just be full of ****. Either way, I still agree with freak show.

[Jantha]

It's hard for me to separate the the two. My opinion on an artist/creator/author has a huge effect on what I think of their work.

 

However, in all honesty, the two should be separated. I'm just childish, immature, stubborn and generally just unfit for society.

[BigKahune]

Ars Gratia Artis

 

 

That leaves the artist out. It's all about the art.

 

At least according to MGM. B)

 

 

 

 

Got some long winded replies here . . . . . frustrated journalists.

[Mr. Natural]

[Versatile]

Ars Gratia Artis

 

 

That leaves the artist out. It's all about the art.

 

At least according to MGM. B)

 

 

 

 

Got some long winded replies here . . . . . frustrated journalists.

 

Au contraire mon ami

 

Ars Longa Vita Brevis....Nice.

[Dub-T-123]

I transcend dental medication

 

I view art for what it is. At least I try.

[cookieman15061]

I guess it comes down to this. If an artist's music/ writings touches my soul then there must be a thread connecting my emotions to either the subject matter or the situation, be it real or imagined that they are singing about.

They've in essence created a bond with me. Thats why the Beatles had such an effect on me. They had a song for every feeling I ever had growing up.

Love, anger, disappointment, happiness, loss, confusion, revenge etc. It almost felt like they knew what I was going through.

 

I think our most popular artist have the ability to connect with an audience on a wider scale not just because of the quality of there work but the ease at which the reader/ listener can place themselves.

 

Now whether this can be sustained or not I believe comes down to the artist himself. Essentially do I like the person.

[BigKahune]

Au contraire mon ami

 

Ars Longa Vita Brevis....

 

Good one.

 

The full deal fits even better - Ars longa, vita brevis, occasio praeceps, experimentum periculosum, iudicium difficile

 

= life is short, art long, opportunity fleeting, experiment treacherous, judgment difficult B)

[zigzag]

I like beer.

 

And I don't care who makes it.

 

Spot on. The work exists independent of the artist, except in the context of his body of work and the time that it is created. But, whether a work of art is "good" or "bad" has nothing to do with aesthetics or whether you like it or not, however, it is not likely that you're going to own a piece of art if you don't like it.

[Versatile]

I don't know much about art

 

But I Know What I Like.

[daveinspain]

The personality of the artist influences the art he makes. Kurt Cobain and Michael Jackson come to mind. MJ's body of work is much larger and one can see how his music changed from naive and innocent like "ABC" to more complex emotions and influences like in "Man in the Mirror" and "Bad" later in life. These too artist both came to a tragic end which reflects each of their life style. Cobain's music was wild and violent and he ended up blowing his head off. MJ's music was dossile and he just faded away in a drug induced sleep... I liked both their music. Their personal life doesn't change that.

[Golem]

`

 

 

I would always judge the works seperately.

 

Obviously if you do enuf notable works, you become a

notable personage. That personage is also something

that can be judged, and I'd judge extra positively about

a person who lives by what their works represent [like

frinstintz, Thoreau as mentioned ... ]

 

It's pretty easy to dig the works of Phil Spector or Ike

Turner .... but their bios may be extremely upsetting

to many folks.

 

I guess my rule-of-thimb is that the total personage

INCLUDES their works, but the works alone are the

works alone.

 

YMMV

 

 

`