can you separate art from artists?
Discussion
Should you?
The artist separates from it once it is created.
Or is that not what you mean?
The artist is inside the created art; he cannot separate himself from it.
Both is true. It's different ways of looking at things, different tools used to describe a phenomenon.
So, no more enjoying Michael Jackson songs, Rick and Morty, or Ren and Stimpy?
Long answer, it depends.
Short answer, yes.
I own several pieces of art from my travels in South Africa and Japan.
I don’t know the artists, no one probably ever will…but I liked the work so I bought it.
Similarly I own a known artist’s work and I rarely think of him, I enjoy the part of my life the artwork represents to me.
🎨🫂
art from a forgotten time and place feels different than a living breathing artist discovered to be other than presented... also i feel for some reason static art is different than written word or performance, but i do not know that to be true.
I can see that point.
I was a professional musician for for a couple decades and there is certainly something different in a live performance vs a recording.
Let’s extend this static idea to written word or another medium such as pottery or paintings.
Most people don’t realize the Mona Lisa we attribute a high fiat value to, was actually the static result of numerous live performances.
In other words, there were iterations of the art that resulted in what we classify as the artist work.
But what that is, is really the artistic result…
The artistic work was all the iterations that led up to the “priceless” artwork.
How many drafts of a poem or prose did the author go through before you have what we term the final draft or published work.
There is as much art(sit) and I’d argue more artist in the body of work that leads up the published item than the final item itself,
It’s the sketch books that I believe unlock the final artwork.
To that point, I think that is why improvisation (in Jazz, what I performed mostly) and in comedy as another example, are where the purest art(ists) reside.
Unlike classical music which is much more rigid… it much improv, just interpretation.
But ya know, there is a lot of art in what I do with business clients as well..I have to be able to improvise.
PS #thanks for the #zap nostr:npub1k647j89337vk6wstenvtjlev94g2nf8cqccwdr5gsx558jujwzfqfqnekl
The jews have to do this when they listen to Kanye.
I think a lot depends on where you think the art came from in the first place. If you believe the art emerged from some sort of Platonic world of forms then the artist could be seen as more of a courier than a creator and it'd be much easier to separate the two.
Take comedians for example. Jokes, though considered art, are highly mathematical in nature, and if you're okay with continuing to use the mathematical discoveries of a mathematician who turned out to be an utter dingbat—because you feel the math in question in a way existed before that person anyway—then maybe you should also be okay with continuing to laugh at the jokes of say Bill Cosby.
yes and a lot of art comes from a very personal place... if you discover that connection comes from a sinister shadow, should you disconnect or attempt to appreciate it as an imperfect whole?
As long as the art wasn't somehow explicitly tied to the badness then I'd let it go. If you find out that the designer of your wedding ring has been divorced three times I see that as little reason to get a new ring. What about you?
i like this view. i think for me it is also financial incentives, so can i enjoy this without enriching the artist if he is known to be a dirty rotten scoundrel?
YES.
No more than you can separate the mind from the body.