The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => Arts & Entertainment => Topic started by: AugustWest on September 20, 2007, 04:43:50 am
-
...should an artist's personal life and character influence one's evaluation of their work?
What if Hitler wrote the heart-breakingly greatest story you ever read? Could you still appreciate it?
-
There was actually a science-fiction novel written in the premise that Hitler emigrated to America in the twenties instead and ended up a mostly-successful science fiction novelist and... the book was his final work, a meditation on all of his mad beliefs of humanity filtered through sci-fi lenses.
Not a great book but certainly an interesting one... hm. Forget the title.
Way for Wikipedia! "The Iron Dream" by Norman Spinrad.
-
Not a great book but certainly an interesting one... hm. Forget the title.
This is pretty much a definition of the the SF genre.
-
I can't completely separate my feelings about the people who made something from the thing itself. One always colors the other, assuming I actually know something about the creator.
For example, I don't enjoy the original Star Wars series that much now that my opinion of Lucas is so low. Just the fact that he himself has no idea what made his own creation good forces me to enjoy that creation less.
You probably had something, like, with real meaning in mind though.
-
...should an artist's personal life and character influence one's evaluation of their work?
What if Hitler wrote the heart-breakingly greatest story you ever read? Could you still appreciate it?
I think that it is possible that as humans, we can not help but color our critical perceptions of an artist's work based on non-artistic factors. Can you watch Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" as a documentary, as she claims to have intended it, or are you drawn inexorably to the conclusion that it is actually a propaganda film, and therefore, a tool of the most horrifying regime in history and therefore a work of extreme ugliness? Objectively, it is considered by some to be one of the finest pieces of filmmaking ever... but few people are able to be objective about it, because of its content. And therefore, some also lose their objectivity about her as well.
-
I haven't seen Triumph of the Will, but if it's clear from watching the film, with some knowledge of its context, that it is brazen propaganda, I don't see how that isn't an element of its artistic value. I'm not of the opinion that art exists in a vacuum and that our appreciation for it should be shaped without reference to our morals or ethics. I would argue that all appreciation of art is subjective, and that the line between "artistic factors" and "non-artistic factors" is really not a very clear one.
That, of course, is a subtly different question to the one expressed in the original post: this hypothetical Hitler-story doesn't need to have anything despicable in the text, but merely to have come from a despicable person. I don't believe that there's a universal answer here; people disagree wildly about it, and you can't really wrap that up with a rational argument because that's just not how art works. Difficulty, of course, arises when you start describing things as "a great work of art" or similar, which is very useful shorthand for what it describes but can never, I believe, be an objective, absolute description.
-
I think its been said by others on this board, but I can't watch scientologists without thinking about whack job they are.
-
I think no but that's just not how it works out. I have trouble enjoying Harlan Ellison's work now that just about every interview or public appearance I've read about him points to him being at best a complete social retard (which I could sympathize with) and at worst a miserable wretch with who has found out that because of who he is he can get away with being a petulant little dickweed.
-
I've always thought that it's a bad idea to actually meet anyone whose work you admire, for this very reason. The risk that it could spoil everything is just too great.
-
I've seen about 500 columns, news reports, blogs, &c about this very topic over the past couple of months following the double-murder/suicide of Chris Benoit. Some people say they can still enjoy his matches while others think anybody who can still enjoy them has no soul. I just feel so overloaded on this topic that I can't even think about it any more.
-
That's a very interesting question Aug. It's one I think about a lot. Especially lately, as reporters have been trying to interview me. So far, I've been basically avoiding interviews, but now that big companies will be paying me decent sums of money, there's a lot of pressure to do interviews for them to promote the shows. Having worked on the other side, having been a reporter... I'm very wary of the image people try to create of me. Because I am under 30 it is assumed that I am a role model. The amount of times I've heard a reporter try to convince me to do an interview "because you're a role model" is pretty high. But I'm not a role model... I'm not a bastion of moral good to be emulated... Nor do I write work intended for a young audience. It's very uncomfortable to me. Anyone who would do any digging at all would discover I've got a long list of things that do not fall into the "role model" category, and that I continue to be a highly flawed human being.
I suppose what I'm saying is that there is a lot of spin when it comes to image making, and the public mask any artist presents to the world isn't necessarily his/her true self, and is, in essence, a continuation of their art. It is important, maybe because it's the viewer's participation in artist's creation. One can think of Sylvia Plath and imagine the depth of her sorrow, maybe mirror something from our own lives... and then we're part of their art in a way, because we're creating, we're building up an image. So while there's the irrefutable facts of a person's life: partners, marriages, divorces, death, etc... The rest is all image making. We think of Marilyn Monroe as a sexy symbol, and her art definitely presented that image, and what we saw of her private life did too. But when she and Arther Miller were alone, did she pee with the door open? Did he fart in bed? The reality of actually knowing someone, and a constructed picture of a private life are two different beasts.
I suppose if I were smart, I'd choose a character archetype I enjoy and just make that who I am for interviewers.
-
I think no but that's just not how it works out. I have trouble enjoying Harlan Ellison's work now that just about every interview or public appearance I've read about him points to him being at best a complete social retard (which I could sympathize with) and at worst a miserable wretch with who has found out that because of who he is he can get away with being a petulant little dickweed.
Harlan Ellison is a spiteful and furious gnome. I went to a thing at MIT that was sort of a peculiar joint lecture-Q&A panel sort of thing with him, Peter David, and Neil Gaiman, and Harlan Ellison was an insulting ass towards anyone who directed a question towards him (or towards all three) with the exception of one person who prefaced his question with a self-abasement about how he knew how educated-stupid he was, which earned Ellison's praise. When someone in my vicinity of the audience laughed at something he said that wasn't intended as humor, Ellison glared at me and said "You, in the grey shirt. I'm watching you."
Gaiman was polite and pleasant, although some of his answers were a bit roundabout. Peter David was quite amiable towards the questioners; I like his writing the least of the three, but he's probably the one I'd most enjoy having lunch with.
-
Yeah, I'd like to say that it doesn't matter, but I know it probably would. I know I've had a harder time enjoying Ray Bradbury's work since it became clear he's some kind of super-conservative pseudo-Luddite.
-
It matters to me, but it doesn't decrease my enjoyment of a work; if anything it's the opposite. Knowing about the artist and the context in which the work was created gives you additional perspective that, to me, is interesting and helps me understand it better. If it turns out the artist is a douche, I just think, "this is some pretty good work; it's a shame the artist is such a douche."
-
I personally can't enjoy someone's work if I don't respect them. However, I agree with omba and quite often I purposefully avoid researching an author so that the enjoyment won't be tainted.
-
Everyone is beautiful in their own way.
-
it only colors my perception if I personally know the artist.
IE, my douchebag ex best friend could write the best song ever, and I would still hate it.
Led Zeppelin can beat up groupies or whatever, but their music is still good.
Frank Zappa, on the other hand... the fact that he is a douche who thinks he is smarter and better than everyone shows through in his work. So, I don't like his work.
-
Yes, I can seperate my critique completely, except when hearing a Verdi opera I always think of him groping some broad's ass.
-
Frank Zappa, on the other hand... the fact that he is a douche who thinks he is smarter and better than everyone shows through in his work. So, I don't like his work.
How do you feel about Bach?
-
um, Bach is good.
-
um, Bach is good.
He was also quite a dick, lording it over Handel, showing off his fugue improvising skills, pissing on the seat and just generally being a an ass to lesser mortals.
-
I've put a lot of effort into trying to appreciate Frank Zappa, but I think Dan's comment pretty much nails it on the head.
-
yeah, but, you can't hear his voice in his pieces. saying "hey, I'm frank zappa. yeahhhhhh."
-
He was also quite a dick, lording it over Handel, showing off his fugue improvising skills, pissing on the seat and just generally being a an ass to lesser mortals.
Man, Handel should have known he fuged.
-
I... really like most of Frank Zappa's stuff.
Great guitarist and his lyrics make me feel like everyone in the world is being made fun of except for Zappa and myself.
I can see where that would be grating to people with Certain Comic Sensibilities, however.
-
Judging Frank Zappa on the strength of his lyrics is kind of like judging Bob Dylan on his singing voice.
-
but, see, Bob Dylan's singing voice is awesome. I only wish I could sing like him.
Zappa, to me, is just... smarmy. Listening to him makes me feel kind of dirty.
-
I really enjoyed Michael Moorcock's Elric Saga, but once I read up on him and how much he despised Tolkein, it just wasn't the same, y'know?
So now I guess I've adopted linnea's strategy: Enjoy their work, but don't research'em.