|
Post by soufflé on Mar 14, 2023 10:07:14 GMT -5
inspired by recent posts in lyric thread -
do u separate the art from artist if the person is somehow problematic?
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Mar 14, 2023 11:42:21 GMT -5
Yes. I think art ends up separating itself from the artist. At some point the artist eventually dies, and the art remains. (I think only in self-tattooers this may not be true).
|
|
|
Post by Tiran O'Saurus on Mar 14, 2023 12:17:31 GMT -5
I was going to say something here, but JL put it better than me.
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on Mar 15, 2023 5:04:26 GMT -5
we've had this topic before, a handful of years ago, and discussion went on for long, iirc. i'm still on the same side, and think ultimately the art stands on its own. of course that doesn't preclude that the art can be ethically dubious.
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Mar 15, 2023 6:51:09 GMT -5
despite that, I think that sometimes literature doesn't separate itself so much from the author, depending on the type of work. An autobiography will never be separated from the author, obviously. On the other hand, depending on the type of fiction, it is possible or not to separate it from the author. Let's exemplify with Daniel Handler. I think ASOUE is already separated from the author, even before his death. Even if someone doesn't like Daniel Handler or is indifferent to his existence, one might very well like ASOUE very much. Daniel Handler is not the same person who wrote ASOUE, in a more philosophical sense of the word "person". On the other hand, for now I find it impossible to disassociate PFB from Daniel Handler. Despite being fictional, Daniel Handler evidently put much of the person he is today into the first-person narrative of the story. I think this situation is very specific to literature. I don't think that a singer, actor, plastic artist should be associated with his work. Especially actors. After all, the definition of an actor's craft involves playing someone he or she is not.
|
|
|
Post by Reba on Mar 15, 2023 6:58:16 GMT -5
every person is somehow problematic. (except for me)
|
|
|
Post by soufflé on Mar 15, 2023 7:53:36 GMT -5
at what point does problem become problem
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on Mar 15, 2023 11:14:27 GMT -5
Despite being fictional, Daniel Handler evidently put much of the person he is today into the first-person narrative of the story. I think this situation is very specific to literature. I don't think that a singer, actor, plastic artist should be associated with his work. Especially actors. After all, the definition of an actor's craft involves playing someone he or she is not. common misconception about acting - i.e. that they "lie for a living". actors actually try to find the truth of a character within themselves. of course, this only concerns their psychological portrayal of the character; the character's actions themselves are make-believe. in that way, this process actually has a lot in common with what a literary author does. who is the one more in tune with fictional serial killer hannibal lecter's mind? anthony hopkins, who portrayed him on the screen, or thomas harris, who wrote silence of the lambs and actually invented the character? singers, in that way, are also very similar to actors. either they manage to find their own truth in the song they are singing, or their performance sucks because it doesn't mean anything to the listener. on the other hand, it's a pet peeve of mine when people automatically interpret the narrative "I" in a song's lyrics to be the singer and/or songwriter. same thing when you think that just because there might be significant overlap between daniel handler and lemony's character in PFB, that the fictional character can only be understood through the real-life author. no. at the end of the day, daniel handler may choose to have very different views on things that aren't limited to the fictional character of a young boy. that he wrote the character only means that he could relate to those views. trying to guess to what extent the author relates to their characters is a fool's game.
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Mar 15, 2023 11:26:05 GMT -5
I'm really confused if you agreed or disagreed with what I said, or if you just added pertinent remarks that have nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing... But whatever it is, it's like you said. But let me give you an example: the actor who plays the lead in the upcoming The Flash movie... A lot of people don't like him and would even stop watching the movie because of his bad reputation. I don't think that makes sense. And as far as connecting with the characters in your own work or character, that's something that happens during the creative process, of course. But after the work is finished, be it a film or a book, or a canvas, or music... it is the turn of art consumers to connect with art, and not necessarily with the artist. Many times a song means a lot to someone for reasons totally different from the meaning intended by the composer or the musician. The same can be said of books. I'm sure Daniel Handler doesn't like the way I consume ASOUE as an adult to this day. But, I don't care about his opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on Mar 15, 2023 11:57:34 GMT -5
i mostly disagreed with the part i quoted from your post: that PFB's narrator is de facto Daniel Handler; that separating art from the artist is specific to literature; that actors don't have anything to do with the character they're portraying.
i do agree that (any) art should be interpreted without regard to its real-life author. a biographer may do this, but it doesn't have to do with the artwork's meaning, which - i also agree with you - may change from person to person.
|
|
|
Post by Tiran O'Saurus on Mar 15, 2023 12:03:43 GMT -5
Would I, though? Or would I be supporting the creation of good products? Let's say Joe Evil is a politician who everyone hates. One day he releases Evil Cereal(tm) which is the first breakfast cereal to taste good. If nobody buys it, wouldn't it seem as though nobody appreciates good cereal? I care more about my own enjoyment than how it might benefit someone else for me to enjoy something.
|
|
|
Post by Reba on Mar 15, 2023 14:14:34 GMT -5
as someone who spends most of his time studying/appreciating artists who lived centuries ago, i treat it as inevitable—and even fundamental— to the art experience—that I will encounter ideas and attitudes that I find reprehensible. whether or not that alienates me completely from the art is a totally individual judgment based on all kinds of possible mitigating factors.
Completely unrelated, I think, is the question of art as a product that you buy to support living artists. I do think it is unethical to give financial support to people who should be in prison, for example. and more generally, i think it makes sense if you do not want to give financial support, or dont feel comfortable consuming media from, a person that you know is running amok somewhere in the world, just being a total asshole. but I wouldn’t take an ethical stance on that front.
Then there is the third, equally divergent question, of the personal life of the artist (beyond what remains of it in his or her art) and what impact it should have on interpreting that art. the “Contre Sainte-Beuve” question. this I also think is totally individual, both on the artist’s and the interpreter’s part. Personally I find it extremely interesting to investigate an artist’s life, and to try to construe what connection the art may have to it. I find it FAR LESS interesting (in fact, worthless) to investigate the art itself for biographical hints that are otherwise unknowable.
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Mar 15, 2023 14:26:24 GMT -5
That would be a form of protest, or ethics I guess. But this is a conscious, principled decision. And I respect that, for sure, in a way I agree. I personally have already stopped reading a book because of this. But I understand that this is a kind of silent protest. And not that I will or will not like the book because of that.
|
|
|
Post by Isadora Is a Door on Mar 15, 2023 15:53:25 GMT -5
But let me give you an example: the actor who plays the lead in the upcoming The Flash movie... A lot of people don't like him and would even stop watching the movie because of his bad reputation. I don't think that makes sense. I'll explain it to you in a much greater extent. Imagine there is a political figure you hate. If they sold a product and you bought it, you would be supporting that political figure. Not at all. If you buy most things, you pay tax on it. That tax goes to a government that you may or may not agree with, or may have a political figure you dislike at the heart of. That does not mean you support (or don't support) their views. A product or entity created by someone for the purpose of monetary gain is not directly the same as a peice of art.
|
|
|
Post by bryan on Mar 15, 2023 20:44:33 GMT -5
Would I, though? Or would I be supporting the creation of good products? Let's say Joe Evil is a politician who everyone hates. One day he releases Evil Cereal(tm) which is the first breakfast cereal to taste good. If nobody buys it, wouldn't it seem as though nobody appreciates good cereal? I care more about my own enjoyment than how it might benefit someone else for me to enjoy something. This metaphor is pretty in the weeds but I would ask, Do you care more about your own enjoyment than how it might harm someone else for you to enjoy something? as someone who spends most of his time studying/appreciating artists who lived centuries ago, i treat it as inevitable—and even fundamental— to the art experience—that I will encounter ideas and attitudes that I find reprehensible. whether or not that alienates me completely from the art is a totally individual judgment based on all kinds of possible mitigating factors. Completely unrelated, I think, is the question of art as a product that you buy to support living artists. I do think it is unethical to give financial support to people who should be in prison, for example. and more generally, i think it makes sense if you do not want to give financial support, or dont feel comfortable consuming media from, a person that you know is running amok somewhere in the world, just being a total asshole. but I wouldn’t take an ethical stance on that front. Then there is the third, equally divergent question, of the personal life of the artist (beyond what remains of it in his or her art) and what impact it should have on interpreting that art. the “Contre Sainte-Beuve” question. this I also think is totally individual, both on the artist’s and the interpreter’s part. Personally I find it extremely interesting to investigate an artist’s life, and to try to construe what connection the art may have to it. I find it FAR LESS interesting (in fact, worthless) to investigate the art itself for biographical hints that are otherwise unknowable. Not much to add I just really like this breakdown. The issue doesn't really have a yes or no answer, it'll always be nuanced
|
|