Separation of Artist and Art

November 24th, 2009 / 5:39 pm Adam Robinson—

It’s infuriating that this point needs to be made, but I’m glad you make it anyway. I think a lot of this response has to do with audience pride, as it’s a way to show that “Hey, I know something about an artist! I’m going to make a good point!” This happens so much with Hemingway — more than anyone else in my experience. And then all that happens is we stop talking about A Farewell to Arms altogether while someone goes on and on about how he treated women.

November 24th, 2009 / 5:42 pm Seventy Days—

So if you don’t have a basement where do you eat the babies?

November 24th, 2009 / 5:45 pm davidpeak—

i think that in the “internet writers community” in particular, where cliques are rampant and alliances well-formed, it’s especially difficult to critique or comment on works without seeming like you’re attacking or directly criticizing (or is some cases “kissing the ass of”) the person responsible for said works.

November 24th, 2009 / 5:53 pm drew kalbach—

i agree. conflating the author with his work is a mistake, and something to be avoided always.

that being said, if you had a baby-eating dungeon i think i would buy more of your books.

November 24th, 2009 / 5:58 pm a moorad—

I don’t know on this one. In essence, I totally agree with point that a work should stand on its own – but I can help but feel the perception of an artist inevitably informs how his/her art celebrated or hated. It’s a two-way street. I mean – am I completely wrong? I am?

November 24th, 2009 / 6:13 pm Merzmensch aka kosmopol—

Fully agree!

We should separate artist from his work again. Michel Foucault was wrong, the author is alive, he was alive all the time, he’s acting, he’s hiding in his holodeck from metafictionality of our bonus level named “reality”. He was always separated by his work, sitting with a treacherous smile, using our naive hope, he were just disappeared and we can unhurriedly percieve his works (literary, cinematographic etc.)

I’d say, you can dislike author and like his work simultaniously and vice versa. But it’s better not to extrapolate the authors dark side on his work (and vice versa). Not only in a moral way of thinking.

To throw away all books/films/whatever by an autor who became/already was a “bad guy” is an act of hypocrisy. And our society is unfortunately a huge hypocritic swamp. Thus spoke Merzmensch.

November 24th, 2009 / 6:16 pm barry—

pretty interesting question. i agree with both points. i think the artist should be viewed seperate from the art, but in the small world of online indie publishing i dont think that happens. too many petty ass people.

i wonder how this discussion applies to other professions. i mean, look at mike vick. does dog fighting mean he cant be a succesful nfl quarterback, or should people support him ornot support him. kobie bryant rapes women and people still love the lakers and show him their support. mike tyson rapes women and he’s a monster.

michael jackson?

November 24th, 2009 / 6:19 pm michael james—

Depends. Can you support a film like Chinatown (which I love) without being okay with what Polanski did on some level. Can you hate his guts and love the flower he made from scratch and gave you?

A man I don’t know gives me a boatload of money and brings me out of poverty. He then goes on to murder someone. Then leaves the country and continues giving you money.

How do you separate this?

I guess you can say well, its *murder*, fool! But why separate horrors into degrees of horror.

I don’t think there can be any true separation.

November 24th, 2009 / 6:20 pm Nathan Tyree—

Yeah. I want to go to these baby eating parties

November 24th, 2009 / 6:23 pm Nathan Tyree—

We must judge the art apart from the artist. There is no way around it. Great people make lousy art sometimes. Monsters make great art sometimes. Get over it.

November 24th, 2009 / 6:27 pm TiMen—

This is probably a run-off from my recent Jameson enchantment but, to me, this amounts to the question of what we’re consuming. Audience vanity is certainly an issue, but we live in a world where people take pictures of teen celebutards crotchlessly pantied hoohoo’s (technical term) because other people want them to.

To illustrate: my own shame.
I didn’t see ‘The Diving Bell and the Butterfly’ because I read about innovative framework, I wanted to see Schnabel’s work after reading an entirely purple account of the man holding court at Balthazaar in a food-stained wife beater.

My question: in which mediums is the consumption of the artist over the art more prevalent? In photography? Painting? Literature?

Are there mediums that are resistant to this coupling and presumed intimacy with the artist vis-à-vis the ingestion (sic) of the work?

November 24th, 2009 / 6:32 pm TiMen—

Philosophy, in my opinion (at least, ontology) is hard to politicize. H. should absolutely be studied aside from the Nazism, which is overstated.

As for Polanski, as long as you don’t buy the ‘Free Polanski’ merchandise… The woman he raped found out he was arrested while AT a family reunion. Then there was an article about how she wants all the articles to stop.

November 24th, 2009 / 6:41 pm Jimmy Chen—

hitler’s watercolors were pretty good

http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/images/highres_00005655%20copy.jpg

November 24th, 2009 / 6:42 pm Josh—

I agree that art ought to be evaluated independent of the artist. I’m surprised that no one has said anything about how an artist’s “good” and “bad” traits influence the art they create, though. This is more tangential with something like directing, but I think completely intertwined in writing. If Hemingway isn’t kind of a dick, is the female character in “Hills Like White Elephants” as seedily manipulative? Does it work as well?

November 24th, 2009 / 6:44 pm aL—

I know where I can get some really cheap babies. Will this be part of a larger performance piece?

November 24th, 2009 / 6:48 pm Lincoln—

Conceptual art

November 24th, 2009 / 6:55 pm reynard—

i think people get hung up on that whole ‘art imitating life / life imitating art’ thing

November 24th, 2009 / 7:01 pm michael james—

I dunno man, that Kobe Bryant thing is still iffy. I mean, didn’t she admit she lied? I believe so, because the case was thrown out. That Michael Jackson issue is also up the air. I mean, do research on the case and on the man himself and you’ll begin to notice some odd things occurring.

Now, I don’t think Higgs is really arguing whether or not they can be successful (my interpretation being good enough at what they do to make it a career), it is whether or not you can separate the two, and whether or not you can genuinely like the art but hate the artist. And whether that second set can also be separated.

Mike Tyson is a good example. People gave him chances. They heard what he did, saw what he did, and many people left his camp. Others did not. You know who the people were that usually stuck with him? Money men/women. People who didn’t care about women beating in the first place. You’ll notice his career stalling about that same time.

Same with Polanski in fact. He didn’t come back around until…. The Pianist? Yes or no?

November 24th, 2009 / 7:03 pm michael james—

I know this one poet who’s a dick. I mean, a real passive aggressive nutlicker. But sometimes he makes poems I like. I still think he’s a bitchass, so I’ll never buy any of his books. And I still read his work, whenever I do come across it, with a smirk and an eye-roll just because I can see the man behind the work. And I fucking dislike him.

November 24th, 2009 / 7:04 pm reynard—

i heard that guy only had one nut

November 24th, 2009 / 7:11 pm barry—

whether or not mj did anything or not isnt the issue, the question is can people/should people seperate the man from the music.

same with kobey. neither of us know, we weren’t there, but really, this wouldnt be the frst time that giving someone lots of money makes them recant their testimony. ether way. kobe gets a free pass in the public eye.

i like higgs question and i think its important to seperate the two. but my question is why does this apply to art. people hate walmart because of their business practices. does that mean they should hate going in the store and buying 99 cent crest toothpaste. or a tshirt for 4 bucks.

people support indie bookstaores and music stores over the chains because of who they are. this conversation is only interesting to me when its extended beyond art and we begin to look at the reason why…

November 24th, 2009 / 7:14 pm Gene—

I don’t know Woody Allen or Roman Polanski, so I’m not in a place to judge their character. All I know is their freaky details, which I have no actual context for. And in that case, the work exists on its own, because if all I have is a few “fun facts” about a life, especially when it is removed from emotional context, I am in no position to judge.

However, if I know you and you’re an artist and a dick, I cannot separate the two things. I know a few artists who I will pee on, regardless of the quality of work they are producing. They deserve my pee. And your pee.

November 24th, 2009 / 7:24 pm aL—

I heard he used to other one to make that painting. What a waste.

November 24th, 2009 / 7:51 pm michael james—

good point. you win.

November 24th, 2009 / 7:59 pm jereme—

this shit again…

to deny the creator from the creation is impossible. and i really don’t understand why you would want to.

if work should hold up on its own, then why the need to put your name on the work?

it is “The Old Man and the Sea” by Ernest Hemmingway is it not?

why isn’t it simply “The Od Man and the Sea” or “Scorch Atlas” or “A Jello Horse”?

The author needs his name associated with the work just as much as the audience does. Because of that the work will never be judged solely on its own.

this notion of “i want you to know I wrote this but do not want to be judged for who I am” is ridiculous. i am sorry.

I think the issue is more of a relfection of how dumb and subjective people can be.

Like in Adam’s example up above. Yes, Hemmingway wasn’t nice to the women folk and that should play a part in a discussion. But the discussion should be about his charactor not about a specific story or maybe how his character influenced his work.

If I start a conversation about the merits of “A Farewell to Arms” and the immediate response is “hemmingway beats women!” well then i don’t want to talk to that moron of a mind anyways.

i always get this feeling that when people fly the “judge the work not the writer” banner they are trying to qualify douchebag behavior.

because you can write or paint or kickflip or whatever better than 99% of the world does not give you carte blanche to be a horrible person.

and if you are going to be arrogant enough to write philosphy, don’t be a fucking nazi or lose your mind. it sort of discredits you a little.

just a little.

November 24th, 2009 / 8:02 pm michael james—

Slate on Chris Brown and his new song: http://www.slate.com/id/2233981/

November 24th, 2009 / 8:13 pm reynard—

it’s easy to mythologize artists and difficult to separate art from mythology. i think people want the mythology, both artists and consumers of art. like, it provides a context in which to view and ‘comprehend’ the art and it seems like people really need that, they really want to understand everything. and if that mythology doesn’t exist already, someone will invent it. sometimes this happens long after the person is dead. in fact, it’s much easier that way.

people are hungry for characters. it’s supply and demand.

November 24th, 2009 / 8:20 pm reynard—

yr oversimplifications are gross

November 24th, 2009 / 8:28 pm Ben Brooks—

Knowing about the artists personal work can give insight into the art. Theres no such thing as work standing alone, you always bring your own ideas of shit to it. Like if someone writes “I sit on a chair” then you already have the idea of a four legged platform elevated off the floor and you have an idea about the position “sitting”. If you know that christopher higgs eats children then when he says “I watched the children and felt hungry” in his writing you can bring your knowledge of him eating children to that, meaning a different interpretation than “awh hes watching the children and he wants a hot dog”. Sometimes its just not there, and knowledge of the artist wont help at all, but its not complete bullshit to want to know about the artist behind the art. If an artist rapes children and then writes about how he raped children can that be good art?

November 24th, 2009 / 8:35 pm michael james—

as r yr deletion of ltrs

November 24th, 2009 / 8:41 pm david erlewine—

yeah and lots of people dog kobe and vick whenever they show up in town

i like you moving this to other aspects outside “artistry” b/c shit you do in your personal life dogs you once you become a public figure

i liked adam moorad’s comment…in theory i want to say that i think the art stands alone but … yeah if gacy wrote a book about serial killing would anyone on here say who cares about the man’s basement…read his art on its own? obviously a straw man argument in some aspects but still if folks are saying no exceptions to the art standing alone (and nate, i hear you 100% about monsters making great art…in some ways there has to be a line that i won’t cross in the name of art).

November 24th, 2009 / 8:43 pm barry—

jereme:

“this notion of “i want you to know I wrote this but do not want to be judged for who I am” is ridiculous. i am sorry.”

“If I start a conversation about the merits of “A Farewell to Arms” and the immediate response is “hemmingway beats women!” well then i don’t want to talk to that moron of a mind anyways.”

which is it man? either you want to include the author in the discussion or you dont.

November 24th, 2009 / 8:48 pm reynard—

naturally, people want to identify with characters. we really love it. and in the age of dvd commentary to enjoy a film is to identify with the director, and if the director has transgressed against society enjoying the film brings into question one’s own (often hidden) transgressions. and that scares the shit out of people so it’s easier to simply reject the film. otherwise they champion it as a means of excising their demons.

what i just said applies, i think, to the majority of people, but:

Cynthia Rockwell: What’s wrong with identifying with a character?

Ray Carney: It’s a child’s way of thinking. It’s playing with action figures, Halloween dress-up, a dolly tea-party, not what appreciating art is about.

Cynthia Rockwell: What do you mean?

Ray Carney: You know, you dress up your Barbie and “become her.” You hold a tea party with your little friends and play mommy and auntie. You take out your toy soldiers or your Hulk Hogan figure and slay the world. That’s not what experiencing art is about. We know this about other arts, but film appreciation is so infantilized that we forget it. You don’t experience Paul Taylor’s Esplanade or Picasso’s Night Fishing at Antibes or Bach’s Goldberg Variations to plug yourself into them that way, to feel better about yourself, to fantasize that you are strong and mature and powerful. Those works make demands on you. They test your powers of awareness. They expand your consciousness in unexpected directions. They are not Rorschach blotches that you project your fantasies of powerlessness into and get power by expanding within. They are not about flattering you by allowing you to feel sorry for yourself or to pretend you are more important than you really are. Art is not about that. It’s not about cheering yourself up with flattering, self-aggrandizing fantasies. That’s for kids. That’s dressing up and playing pretend. That’s playing with action figures. That’s reading a children’s story when you’re eight or nine. That’s the Halloween parade at school. That’s wearing your Superman underoos. That’s pop culture. That’s Hollywood.

November 24th, 2009 / 9:00 pm Ken Baumann—

‘You don’t experience Paul Taylor’s Esplanade or Picasso’s Night Fishing at Antibes or Bach’s Goldberg Variations to plug yourself into them that way, to feel better about yourself, to fantasize that you are strong and mature and powerful.’

Who in the hell is this guy speaking for?

November 24th, 2009 / 9:01 pm Ken Baumann—

Good.

your to yr baffles me. Why?

November 24th, 2009 / 5:01 pm Ken Baumann—

Good.

your to yr baffles me. Why?

November 24th, 2009 / 9:03 pm Ani Smith—

I think both the artist (assuming a live one) and the audience are responsible for ensuring some level of separation since as noted, complete divorce is impossible.

This came up in the Antichrist thread, too. Why are people so much more interested in this Von Trier character than in the films themselves? We’re a bunch of peeping toms.

It’s also affected by how: when you came across the work, how much you knew of the artist, what was said about the artist, your personal moral stances, your perception of what was done, etc.

The most irritating thing to me is other people actively trying to influence my opinion of the thing in question. To continue with the Von Trier example, there are some accusations of misogyny, but his body of work tells me otherwise, and since I don’t know him and likely never will, I choose to trust the work, based on the information in my little brain.

November 24th, 2009 / 9:05 pm Nathan Tyree—

Being a dick isn’t that big a deal. A violent, hateful dick is a big deal. I hear that Chevy Chase is a total asshat, but he is still funny

November 24th, 2009 / 9:07 pm Nathan Tyree—

perfect

November 24th, 2009 / 9:09 pm reynard—

i think he’s speaking for ray carney, but i suppose you would have to ask him about that. he’s a pretty firm pragmatist if that’s what you mean.

you can read the whole interview here: http://people.bu.edu/rcarney/aboutrc/bgandedu.shtml

November 24th, 2009 / 9:10 pm reynard—

it’s sort of been going on for a while, just the last thirty years or so

November 24th, 2009 / 9:14 pm Nathan Tyree—

I believe that started in the 80s (sonic youth, etc). I still find it dumb

November 24th, 2009 / 9:15 pm reynard—

yeah, culture is dumb

November 24th, 2009 / 9:18 pm Nathan Tyree—

reynard

“yeah, culture is dumb”

Often, yes it is. It would take a moron not to recognize that.

November 24th, 2009 / 9:34 pm reynard—

you are so right, nathan. it would take a moron not to recognize that.

November 24th, 2009 / 9:52 pm david erlewine—

i still remember my dog dying over 10 years ago like it just happened and i think old yeller made me cry more than anything i’ve ever seen.

ha, no castigation from me, nate. i am all over the place on this issue. i always strive to separate the writer/artist from the work but often fail to.

i think my gacy argument was fairly obvious and possibly unhelpful.

i am the one who made the joke to adam’s post about heidegger. so ha ha i win? :)

November 24th, 2009 / 10:09 pm Nathan Tyree—

david

You do win!

November 24th, 2009 / 10:20 pm darby—

theres different facets to what’ ‘ ‘s being talked ’bout here. one is separation w/r/t judging merit (of either art or artist (and what i think chris is mostly talking about)), one is separation w/r/t influence (artist onto art). i’m not in the business of judging people, thats nancy grace’s butter but my butter is judging art, so it doesn’t cross my mind to consider the merit of a person who i’ve never met and even those i’ve met when i want art to be onto me, nor the merit of an art when i want an artist to be into me. those are not crossable bags. don’t put apples and oranges in those bags at the same time. artist’s personhoods feeding into their art is unseparatable and kind of handled already speakably by you. but i would ought to add if i ought that separating artist influence from aughrt ought to be something to strive for, if not aughbtainable absolutely, that’s okay, but i think author distance is a healthy strivable. the end.

November 24th, 2009 / 6:26 pm Molum Haggis—

Actually there is a book written by Ian Brady (a serial killer from Britain) which is about serial killing and philosophy. It is quite good, and very eloquent. However I don’t know if I ever would have read it save for the fact that he was a serial killer. Regardless of the man and his history the book is good, but the appeal wouldn’t have existed without his personal history I suppose.

November 24th, 2009 / 10:41 pm Molum Haggis—

I guess pseudonymy and anonymity are ignored here. You seem to have no way to understand how a thing exists without tethering it to the ground.

Creation ex nihilo must be even more baffling to you than it is to the rabbis.

November 24th, 2009 / 11:24 pm rachel—

artists to the extent that label applies want to make great art, that’s the point. making great art is hard and treating people like human beings all the time is also hard, it is easier to do a hard thing (great art) when you are not worrying about a second hard thing (treating people like human beings all the time). another hard thing is being treated like shit, it is easier to do a hard thing (great art) when you are not worrying about a second hard thing (being treated like shit). not to say some suffering is not important to art, but any individual case of cruelty is usually not.

or: if famous artist x punches y in the mouth, maybe that makes it easier for artist x to make art, maybe it makes it harder for that y to ever become famous artist y, because y will be less concerned with making art and more concerned w/ stopping bleeding.

basically, i think you can only separate art from the artist to the extent that you are uninterested in the fact that victims are also potentially artists, that great art is lost through the process of victimization, that we could have potentially as much art if jerks quit it, while being much more happy about paying tribute to the artist responsible, because their life actions don’t make us so queasy.

November 25th, 2009 / 12:49 am michael james—

whoa. who are you? you’re insightful. no joke.

November 25th, 2009 / 1:31 am jereme—

chevy hasn’t been funny since he stopped doing coke in the 80s. i defy you to prove me wrong.

show me one work where he was funny post 80’s. Not even the whole 80’s. just like the early 80’s.

the guy is a dick from everything i have observed.

November 25th, 2009 / 1:37 am jereme—

barry,

both because it depends on the conversation. i think stating that it is either/or is silly. but if i start a conversation about the work, well, we better talk about the work.

if i start a conversation about the author, don’t roll your eyes and run your man pleasing mouth about how “art is separate from the artist”.

that is a reytarded thing to say.

November 25th, 2009 / 1:40 am Sean—

It seems everyone I know wants to add that extra “m” to Hemingway. Trivial, but I am drunk.

November 25th, 2009 / 1:52 am Ken Baumann—

Drunk, but I am trivial.

November 25th, 2009 / 2:12 am Don Dove—

I suppose anonymous publishing solves this problem but creates a whole score of other difficulties. The anonymous artist may have difficulty branding, marketing, building an audience, getting laid (hopefully with consenting adults), and making money.

Wordsworth tried this with Lyrical Ballads more than two centuries ago. The first publication of this collaborative book of poetry (written w/ Coleridge) only referred to an anonymous “author” in the Advertisement. But after the book became popular, Wordsworth republished Lyrical Ballads with only his name on it, leaving out any credit to Coleridge. Just because Wordsworth was an opportunistic dick for screwing over Coleridge, does not mean I can’t appreciate W.W.’s art.

I apologize for referencing something written before American Modernism.

November 25th, 2009 / 2:16 am rachel—

thanks, heh. i’m just another random college student, wannabe writer/comedy person.

i actually made a film about polanski awhile ago. imaginably the process helped me think about these issues somewhat. anyway:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTJRJulRAlA

November 25th, 2009 / 2:17 am Don Dove—

Here’s W.W.’s preface in the second edition (published w/ a second volume of poetry):

“The First Volume of these Poems has already been submitted to
general perusal. It was published, as an experiment which, I hoped,
might be of some use to ascertain, how far, by fitting to metrical
arrangement a selection of the real language of men in a state of
vivid sensation, that sort of pleasure and that quantity of pleasure
may be imparted, which a Poet may rationally endeavour to impart.

I had formed no very inaccurate estimate of the probable effect of
those Poems: I flattered myself that they who should be pleased with
them would read them with more than common pleasure: and on the
other hand I was well aware that by those who should dislike them
they would be read with more than common dislike. The result has
differed from my expectation in this only, that I have pleased a
greater number, than I ventured to hope I should please.

For the sake of variety and from a consciousness of my own weakness
I was induced to request the assistance of a Friend, who furnished me
with the Poems of the ANCIENT MARINER, the FOSTER-MOTHER’S TALE, the
NIGHTINGALE, the DUNGEON, and the Poem entitled LOVE. I should not,
however, have requested this assistance, had I not believed that the
poems of my Friend would in a great measure have the same tendency
as my own, and that, though there would be found a difference, there
would be found no discordance in the colours of our style; as our
opinions on the subject of poetry do almost entirely coincide.”

November 25th, 2009 / 2:26 am reynard—

you really do have the mind of a child, jereme – i just feel sad for the people who give you the time of day. please go buy a watch or a sundial, but don’t use the sundial at night. your fire is not a nearby star. anyway, you’ll figure it out.

November 24th, 2009 / 10:34 pm Matt K—

Hi. This is not to say how I personally feel about Polanski, but I think it’s ok to like the art and detest the artist. I also think it’s valid to say that hey, maybe knowing this about Polanski will make me think twice about renting Chinatown. He made some great movies, but I don’t need to support him. I think it’s ok to take a position and decide you no longer want to support an artist because of something he or she did (rape, for example.) I don’t see how that can be argued because that’s personal choice. Of course if I were going to write criticism on Polanski’s films, that’s another story – at that point, yeah, I can see keeping the author out of the discussion — I think that’s where Barthes and Foucault were coming from — but that’s very different than a person saying something like “I don’t dig Polanski’s films anymore because he’s a rapist” or “I don’t like Old Man and the Sea because he was a misogynist” – that’s just taste.

November 25th, 2009 / 3:00 am alan—

It wasn’t rape.

November 24th, 2009 / 11:07 pm Matt K—

What was it? He was charged with rape and pled guilty to statutory rape.

November 25th, 2009 / 3:25 am Christopher Higgs—

Hey Alan, I’m assuming this comment is meant as a response to Barry’s comment above about Kobe Bryant. Right? Not about Polanski. Since, in the case of Bryant it wasn’t rape, and in the case of Polanski it was.

Ultimately, I think this confuses artists with entertainers. Although they may have similarities, they also have differences, and it seems highly problematic to conflate the two, especially when we’re first and foremost talking about conflating artists with their art.

Entertainers perform one function, artists perform another. If they did not perform separate functions we would not need to have two separate words for them. Kobe Bryant is an entertainer. Roman Polanski is an artist. Again, this does not mean that what Kobe does is without art, nor does it mean that Polanski does not entertain. But it seems reasonable to me to make this distinction.

November 24th, 2009 / 11:40 pm Matt K—

There are a lot of gray areas between the two, wouldn’t you say? One function of art is to entertain, right? A lot of entertainments are also art. I don’t think this line is so easily drawn much of the time. I also suspect a lot of entertainers would argue with you, making the claim that the entertainments they produce are works of art and would be right, since the distinction is highly subjective. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I’m wondering how useful it is to make the distinction.

November 25th, 2009 / 12:22 am Amber—

I totally agree–separate the art and the artist, and not just when the artist is a dick. For example, Prince is dumb as fuck but made some genius music, so I can respect the music but not the man. Mozart was also supposed to have been an idiot–sometimes amazing, amazing stuff comes out of the most unlikely, sometimes unworthy conduits. And nothing pisses me off more than when another woman is incredulous about my love of Hemingway’s stuff, because he “hated woman.” But i do have two caveats:

1) If an artist is truly a dick, you have the right not to support their art, even if great, with your money.

2) We shouldn’t overlook assitude IF the artist in question is subtly or not so subtly selling a way of thinking or a framework based on his/her assitudery. For instance, Leni Riefenstahl. Arguably a great artist. Should the world have let her art stand for itself? No, and they didn’t. Doesn’t mean we should censor it, but in circumstances like that, you have to call attention to the artist’s politics.

November 25th, 2009 / 1:11 am jereme—

oh i totally have a mind of a child. duh stupid.

that attribute is something we have in common but also separates us.

i am a man with a child’s mind.

you are a child posturing as a man.

the difference is i’m aware and you are ignorant or maybe just dumb.

and what is your definition of time? are you not giving me the time of day by these petty attacks? or is “time” different for deep intelects like yourself?

let me know ra-ra-reytard. i’m real curious and shit.

November 25th, 2009 / 5:12 am darby—

is kobe’s primary function to entertain? I guess I’m questioning the function of all athletics, i feel there is something more than just entertainment there, a kind of striving for human physical potential that is more important than entertainment. Certainly its entertaining, but i feel like it is something that would/should happen regardless of whether anyone was being entertained by it. Art exists in these terms as well, that which strives to achieve human creative potential, regardless of whether anyone is aware of it? I haven’t thought that through yet. Seems kind of true. Only when something can’t exist without an audience, it becomes entertainment.

November 25th, 2009 / 1:14 am Christopher Higgs—

Hey Matt,

Good points. Yeah, I certainly think there’s overlap: there is beauty in what Kobe does and Polanski surely entertains. But I think the dominate characteristic of entertainment is diversion, while the dominate characteristic of art is engagement. (how I define “diversion” and “engagement” probably requires a whole post in-and-of-itself) But, since these are two separate forces, I think it’s productive to make the distinction, or at least recognize that the distinction exists and maybe wrestle with the lines of demarcation between those distinctions. Otherwise, we run the risk of arguing across definitions, having disconnected conversations because one person states a conclusion based on a premise regarding entertainers, while another person states a conclusion based on a premise regarding artists. That seems like an important distinction. Only, now it’s got me wondering if I’d make the same statement about separating entertainers and their entertainment as I would about artists and their art — and if not, how come? Have to think about it.

November 25th, 2009 / 1:22 am Amy McDaniel—

The biggest crime in regard to associating the artist too closely to the art is in reducing the impetus toward and material for artistic creation to biographical circumstances. The Nietzsche bio by Kaufmann that Sam reviews above is a great case study: too often, Nietzsche’s philosophy (poetry?) has been analyzed via his life, whereas Kaufmann argues that the philosophy (poetry) is much more–it is the product of the mind and the imagination, not the life. Sure, maybe you can see signs of Emily Dickinson’s reclusiveness in her work–but not every recluse is Emily Dickinson. There is something much greater, sublimer, more mysterious at work, and this is, I think, overlooked if the focus is on the person and the life s/he lived.

November 25th, 2009 / 3:12 am barry—

people keep saying kobe didnt rape anyone and besides her and kobe i have no idea how anyone pretends to know this….

i think the only thing this answer speaks of is what you consider art. is mj’s music or his dancing not art to you? is kobe’s superior athletic prowess not art to you?

this answer you gave first relies on some elitist definition of art that i doubt people share with you.

a perfectly designed building, sandwich, is that not art enough for you?

November 25th, 2009 / 3:39 am jereme—

hey those dudes at subway are artists too. the tv told me so in the 90’s.

November 25th, 2009 / 6:42 am alan—

Christopher, hi. No, I was talking about Polanski.

Polanski has always said the sex was consensual. Samantha Geimer has said it wasn’t rape. There’s no reason to think otherwise just because of her age at the time. She was experienced with both sex and drugs.

I’m aware the grand jury testimony suggests coercion, but grand jury testimony is by definition coached by the prosecutor, whose purpose is to win the maximum indictment.

I didn’t mean to get into an argument, but I don’t think consensual sex should be criminalized, and this post just seemed to add to the hysteria about this case.

November 25th, 2009 / 7:01 am reynard—

i prefer the aboriginals’ version of time, but let’s not talk about that.

you’re right about one thing: i’m more or less giving you the time of day. so i’m going to try not to do so in the future. but it’s so hard, because you are everywhere and nowhere all at once (i mean this in the worst way possible).

November 25th, 2009 / 7:28 am roberta—

von trier makes life hard for himself. he has the elements of what do feel to me like misogyny running as reoccurring themes through his films. if people are interested in him as a person, there’s fuel added to that fire by the accusations he’s like that in real life. supposedly he treated bjork like complete shit on the set of ‘dancer in the dark.’
but assuming that’s all irrelevant? i think a potential nail in his coffin for some people is he also has reoccurring themes that feel patronising. say: oversimplification, good/bad characters, xenophobia as a given. my theory is that lots of us are uncomfortable with suggested misogyny, but make your audience feel patronised and actually, the overall reaction may be worse. it feels less implicit.

as for the subject as a general one? i’d love it to be as simple as engage with the piece of work, no thought to relevance of artist.
i like work by people who have expressed views that are all kinds of abhorrent to me.
however, i suspect some of the problem is the question of complicity. hate an artist’s views/actions, love their work, buy their book (or whatever) and thus you’re supporting them, and do you then become guilty of some kind of complicity with them? a bit like going to visit a country with a horrible human rights records. your money goes into that country’s tourist industry, and can that be construed as silent support of it on some level? or at least, condoning it? maybe that’s too simplistic a comparison because it lacks the theoretical creator/creation divide.

but anyway. on a more basic level, my response to a lot of things, and a lot of art in general is look, read/watch/ whatever if it interests you. if it no longer interests you, look away, or examine your reaction.
however, i also think there’s a relativity of engagement within that. i can like some of polanski’s film direction, say, but hate the fact he raped a minor. however, if that rape had have involved someone i know and care about? i expect i’d never want to watch another polanski film again. some things probably blur the creator/creation line too much via emotive responses.

but then? i expect i might give reading ‘mein kampf’ a bash if it wasn’t apparently so horrendously badly written and hard to make head or tail of. so i suppose my reaction often is: if it makes you uncomfortable/really fucking uncomfortable, just keep looking.

November 25th, 2009 / 10:06 am michael james—

How can the mind and imagination be separate from the life?

November 25th, 2009 / 10:08 am michael james—

because….. she said it wasnt so… and the police proved it via the evidence found… if i’m not mistaken…

November 25th, 2009 / 11:46 am Amy McDaniel—

not separate. more than. not reducible too.

November 25th, 2009 / 12:21 pm michael james—

It is true, that we are all connected into some force, some central energy like how everything sprouts due to the energy from the core of the earth, but even the earth is connected to this “other” central thing that we are a part of… yes, I agree with you on this. So an artists’ output can be said to come from this place and given some degree of distance from the artist.

But the artist is a filter. This energy, this pipeline which transmits is not unfiltered. We are transformers situated between various points in the electrical current of power lines.

I think Jereme is onto something here. The person will seep through into the material, unless the person uses the material to hide against these feelings inside which they understand aren’t… umm… lets say “correct” — even then the artist is the art and the art is the artist, but those objectionable ideas/feelings/etc aren’t necessarily “there in the work”. I am not forgetting the actions committed before the work materialized — in this particular situation I am assuming the artist is in conflict and not committing acts, but rather having internal struggles.

So… isn’t it like quantum entanglement? We are individuals who aren’t entirely separate, but we are. This question is a paradox unless you compartmentalize, deny, ignore. But what else are you hiding away that might actually benefit your enjoyment of the art while simultaneously making you, the perceiver, feel a certain way about it.

Just cuz i didn’t know Hitler personally, I’m not gonna say I’m cool with his actions, or have no authority to feel critical about him as a person. Hitler is still famous. Wow.

November 25th, 2009 / 12:51 pm rachel—

Alan, I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.

November 25th, 2009 / 5:22 pm barry—

michael:

“because….. she said it wasnt so… and the police proved it…”

really? don’t be a fucking tool. thats like saying, and my momma said rock and roll is the devil. and thats why alligators got all dem teef.

you know how many women are beaten and raped then “say it wasn’t so”?

November 25th, 2009 / 5:38 pm Will @ A Journey Round My Skull—

This sentence recently got me: “After Maryann indulged in ‘a tipsy flirtation’ at a dinner party in 1975 — by which time [Raymond] Carver’s alcoholism had reached the full-blown stage — he hit her upside the head with a wine bottle, severing an artery near her ear and almost killing her.”

It’s definitely harder for me to separate the art from the artist when the artist is closer to my day & age & culture. Less with filmmakers or musicians than with writers.

I realized recently that if I didn’t trust Thomas Bernhard completely, I wouldn’t let him invade my head. Try to imagine reading a book as intense as “Correction” if you knew the author was a wife beater. I just wouldn’t let it through. (I’m also aware that I “worship” certain authors who very well could have been monsters and I just missed that part of their bio.)

November 25th, 2009 / 5:42 pm Mather Schneider—

This is insane. So, I suppose it is easier to watch a movie or read a book about a rapist or murderer as long as it was written by a good citizen.

November 25th, 2009 / 6:02 pm michael james—

You do know that socially the cards are stacked against the male in terms of being accused of rape, right? So when it is proven forensically, and with evidence, that the rape in question was not committed by Kobe Bryant, and when that is then backed up by her testimony (interview, she never took the stand), I am inclined to believe it never actually took place, this rape.

I am not a gullible character. I did not instantly believe Kobe was innocent. I did not instantly believe he was guilty. I let the events play out and then formed an opinion. This case was very similar to TuPac’s trial. Insanely similar, actually….

November 25th, 2009 / 6:25 pm Will @ A Journey Round My Skull—

I only watch movies about wife beating by wife beaters wearing wife beaters.

I’m just saying I think about it, though I agree you have to separate the art and the artist. (And I think about it a lot because all of the authors I read seem to have been repugnant in some way.)

I’ve been reading and enjoying Kipling, Stevenson, and Conrad. I’m actively trying *not* to read in-depth bios and cultural critiques before reading the work. It seems people choose not to read authors because of politics all the time. (I assure you I’m a flaming liberal.)

November 25th, 2009 / 7:54 pm Ben Segal—

The relation of an author’s name to a text (or artist to work of art etc.) inheres in a kind of interstitial space between/bridging the inside and outside of the text. I think what is proper is two readings that exist in tension with each other- one the ‘text itself’ the other as the ‘text-in-the-world’ in which the signifier of the author’s name is read as a part of the text that reflects onto the text itself.

I would also argue that Heidegger is a different case than Polanski is a different case the Kobe Bryant. Whether or not Heidegger held certain repugnant beliefs ought not to reflect on the truth-value of his observations (although they may be taken into account as part of the ground of his thinking). Kobe scores a lot of points and wins championships. His non-basketball life does not reflect on his basketball skills. Polanski is the most interesting case because art is a lot harder to measure in terms of things like ‘points’ or ‘logical consistency’. Thinking about Benjamin, I would turn to the notion of ‘aura’ to describe the relation (or perceived relation) of the work of art to the physical world insofar as that relation is important to aesthetic judgment. So the name Polanski drags all kinds of traces and undertones and ghost sounds into the work to which it is attached without ever erasing or fully overcoding his films.

I want to go into all of these tangents about the death of the author and the author-function and appropriation, but suffice to say that I think this is a really difficult question that’s made more difficult by the tangle and interplay of legitimate layers of interpretation and valuation.

November 25th, 2009 / 8:22 pm rachel—

“You do know that socially the cards are stacked against the male in terms of being accused of rape, right?”

Dude. Let’s look at what a woman must process and accept before accusing a man of rape:

– the fact that they were in fact raped
– the fact that the man’s relatives, coworkers, and friends will likely be extremely hostile to the idea that their relative, coworker, and friend could be a rapist
– the fact that there will be a zealous contingent calling her a slut who begged for it, no matter what
– the fact that the only way justice can possibly be obtained is by taking the stand, thereby having to relive the trauma, and making public what the unvictimized can let remain private, at their leisure
– the fact that, should the victim’s emotional strength or financial circumstances fail her at any moment and she should withdraw her case, she should be called a liar and the man a cruelly maligned innocent
– the fact that she could lose the case, for lack of concrete evidence, the personal sexism of the jury and/or the judge, and/or the institutional sexism of our legal construct, going through the emotional, financial, and social pressures of going to trial, for the end result of being called a liar, and the man who raped her a cruelly maligned innocent

Not saying it doesn’t suck to be falsely accused. But c’mon, let’s not pretend accusing someone is some goddamn picnic. This shit sucks all around without having to hear about against whom the cards are stacked. That shit rolls eyes.

November 25th, 2009 / 9:01 pm barry—

true dat

November 25th, 2009 / 9:02 pm barry—

” I think this is a really difficult question that’s made more difficult by the tangle and interplay of legitimate layers of interpretation and valuation.”

nice.

November 26th, 2009 / 3:33 pm sonna—

Supporting an artist financially is inextricably bound to support of his views, life, etc, because he attains cultural significance (i.e. a public voice) via that economic support. I cannot give money to a sexual abuser, or an individual who has made a pattern of exploiting young women, etc, as Polanski clearly has. It’s not always obvious to me where I can draw the line on these issues (I think we all would draw the line in different moral places), but I know I can draw a line here. I can think of very few things more dehumanizing than rape, or more shattering to the integrity of the individual and their ability to simply live (not to mention to live capable of intimacy thereafter). To give money to a rapist is to kick these people in the face and scoff at their suffering, preferring instead art, which so often presumes to tell us about the nature of suffering. After an artist is dead, when the money will be funneled into their estate, then I don’t really care about their views, actions, etc. But as long as they are alive, any economic support of a rapist implicitly erodes the seriousness of the crime.

November 27th, 2009 / 11:46 am michael james—

mind…. blown….

November 27th, 2009 / 11:55 am michael james—

No one said it was a picnic. But it is forgotten that although we live in a male-centric society, women hold more power than most know. We aren’t talking about women who were raped. We are talking about the perceptions of rape. I realized that you entirely set up that above case process from the female perspective when it is true that men are rape all the time. Not as much as women, of course, but they are. The same can be said of spousal abuse, or abuse in general. Though it is the men who are handcufed and taken away when the call is made. It is actually police procedure that if the man is defending himself against assault, he is automatically taken away. Unless the police see the act of her initiating assault.

So lemme say again, in terms of *accusing* someone of rape, the cards are stacked against the male. Not in terms of a true situation of a woman being raped, and then the process of facing her rapist. No matter how you spin it, in terms of accusing, the male in the situation is facing an uphill battle.

I hate these conversations.

November 29th, 2009 / 5:10 pm AdamM—

I’m very surprise nobody mentioned Emmanuel Faye’s 2005 book. He claims to have found in Heidegger’s 1930’s unpublished lecture notes several references or indications of national socialism. It’s being published in English soon. The point being that for a lot of people why we we should read Heidegger is still as unresolved as the question of how we should read him. And it’s the same for deMan.

November 29th, 2009 / 7:28 pm jereme—

i want to rape every one here.

November 29th, 2009 / 11:45 pm christopher higgs—

Hi Adam,

Heiddie’s relationship with the NSDAP is well documented. He took Husserl’s position as Rector at University of Freiburg, Husserl having to split on account of being Jewish and all. So there’s not much mystery there. My argument is: so what? He was a Nazi. That doesn’t mean that his contribution to the study of ontology is any less badass.

In terms of Paul deMan…dude wrote for a pro-Nazi newspaper in Belgium when he was in his late teens-early twenties. What on earth that would have to do with his contribution to literary criticism thirty years later is beyond me.

Yes, in this comment I referred to Martin Heidegger as Heiddie. Had to do it.

Reviews

Separation of Artist and Art

189 Comments

Archives

Meta