When experiencing art, are you bothered by the artist's views/actions?

Started by Martinus, October 11, 2009, 01:49:35 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

When you watch/experience a work of art, is your perception of that art affected by the person of the artist?

No. The art exists independently of the artist.
11 (34.4%)
Yes, but only if the aspect of the artist (e.g. his views or past behaviours) you disagree with feature in his art.
8 (25%)
Yes, it colors my perception somewhat, but I try to watch the work of art anyway.
5 (15.6%)
Yes, and I actively boycott the work of art of the artist with whom I disagree.
8 (25%)

Total Members Voted: 30

DisturbedPervert

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 12, 2009, 12:35:22 AM
Can you think of a better single word to describe the acts of looking at a painting or sculpture, hearing music, watching a movie and reading a book?

Not one that makes you seem like a total douchebag, no.

Eddie Teach

Quote from: DisturbedPervert on October 12, 2009, 12:52:20 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 12, 2009, 12:35:22 AM
Can you think of a better single word to describe the acts of looking at a painting or sculpture, hearing music, watching a movie and reading a book?

Not one that makes you seem like a total douchebag, no.

:lol: Ok, so how about one that doesn't make you seem like a douchebag.

I had the same initial reaction- "experiencing art" sounds rather pretentious. But I couldn't think of a better way to put it.
To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

Habsburg

No.  I do not care for Polanski, Kazan, Redgrave (Vanessa) or Penn, but their works stands apart from their personal actions.

Martinus

Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2009, 09:08:01 PM
Why is this necessarily a negative thing? Knowing about the author/artist, etc. can sometimes be illuminating.

I'm sure that knowing a certain author was gay, makes that person's works more valuable and attractive to you, Mart, no?

Well, it's different. I meant this in a specifically negative context. Essentially does it spoil the experience for you. Your point is different than what I was getting it.

Martinus

Quote from: saskganesh on October 11, 2009, 06:18:47 PM
option two.

I'm am not a fan of New Criticism, as I believe Art has context, which it cannot be seperated from.

So when you see what a loser Nietzsche was, or what a political failure Machiavelli was, you pretty much have to reappraise their works.

The problem with this example is that neither Nietzsche nor Machiavelli were artists. ;)

Admiral Yi

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 12, 2009, 01:06:15 AM
:lol: Ok, so how about one that doesn't make you seem like a douchebag.

I had the same initial reaction- "experiencing art" sounds rather pretentious. But I couldn't think of a better way to put it.
Enjoying art.  Consuming art.

Eddie Teach

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2009, 02:03:14 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 12, 2009, 01:06:15 AM
:lol: Ok, so how about one that doesn't make you seem like a douchebag.

I had the same initial reaction- "experiencing art" sounds rather pretentious. But I couldn't think of a better way to put it.
Enjoying art.  Consuming art.

Enjoying suggests the art in question is good. Consuming has a variety of semantic problems and sounds as pretentious as experiencing imo.
To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

BuddhaRhubarb

I voted somewhat, but... There is a lot of art I like that I don't know anything about the artists, and have little interest in finding out.

Some artists,however,  are more interesting as people (for good or bad, but interesting) and I think their personalities can sometimes color (for me or others)their work in ways they don't intend, or like themselves (Spike lee would be the best example of this... most critics hardly ever talk about whatever film, but talk about Spike)... Tarantino, Sean Penn, Polanski, Madonna... etc all to some degree hinder there own art by the force of their celebritiness.

I know absolutely nothing about say Rembrandt - I think his art is simply astounding (especially in person)... I feel the same about Van Gogh and I know a lot about his own story which is kind of a piece of art on it's own. Do I devalue or praise him more for his whacky life, or because I feel sympathy or empathy? maybe somewhat, not enough to sway me from my initial reaction of being mind blown whenever I see certain of his works.

:p

jimmy olsen

Yes, but only if the aspect of the artist (e.g. his views or past behaviours) you disagree with feature in his art.
It is far better for the truth to tear my flesh to pieces, then for my soul to wander through darkness in eternal damnation.

Jet: So what kind of woman is she? What's Julia like?
Faye: Ordinary. The kind of beautiful, dangerous ordinary that you just can't leave alone.
Jet: I see.
Faye: Like an angel from the underworld. Or a devil from Paradise.
--------------------------------------------
1 Karma Chameleon point

Caliga

0 Ed Anger Disapproval Points

Martinus

Quote from: Caliga on October 12, 2009, 08:04:33 AM
So wait... when did Prince start hating gays?  :huh:

Some time 6 months ago or so. He gave some interview where he came out as this rabid Christian fundie.  :huh:

Caliga

Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2009, 08:06:14 AM
Some time 6 months ago or so. He gave some interview where he came out as this rabid Christian fundie.  :huh:
Wait, he's not just some go-through-the-motions Catholic?
0 Ed Anger Disapproval Points

Caliga

0 Ed Anger Disapproval Points

Ed Anger

Stay Alive...Let the Man Drive

Caliga

I haven't read it in years.  :(

They used to hand it out all the time at my old train station up in Boston, but I never see it down here.
0 Ed Anger Disapproval Points