I would say it’s not possible. The art IS the artist. The art only is what it is because the artist is who they are. But a lot of people seem to be very comfortable with the idea of separating the art from the artist. What say Lemmy?
I would say it’s not possible. The art IS the artist. The art only is what it is because the artist is who they are. But a lot of people seem to be very comfortable with the idea of separating the art from the artist. What say Lemmy?
My absolutely favorite take about art is the one from the edge of the 19->20th century, where they got obsessed about art having to be absolutely separated from reality, to be even worth considering, since that would only taint it, and just be perfect.
So in that case, I have no issues with separating the art from the artist. Or, since they also tried to make art out of their lives (the whole dandy thing), which made basically professional posers, I also don’t mind separating morality/reality from the artists and viewing their life as art. For example, Motley Crue were extremely bad people to be around, but their lifestyle was portrayed well enough that it does sound kinda fun (as long as you don’t actually live like that in reality), so I don’t judge and kind of appreciate them trying.
On the other hand, if someone is a dick as an artist without their behavior being refined enough to pass as an art/pose/dandyism, I make sure to not give them any money whatsoever, or promote their products, and just shittalk and laugh at them. Even if their actuall art is good, which I will probably enjoy, but will definitely not pay for.
Is it a good take on the question that makes sense? Probably not, but it does work for me.