Best Ever Albums

Re: Point of Discussion: Separating The Artist From Their Art

Anonymous — Tue, 23 Aug 2016 10:14:03 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 08/23/2016 14:14

It is true that we could experience a piece of music without knowing anything about the artist and the music itself would be no different. However, it would also be no different if we experienced it without understanding the language, discerning the pitches, or indeed even hearing it at all. Are we left with anything to judge this elusive object?

Re: Point of Discussion: Separating The Artist From Their Art

boyd94 — Tue, 23 Aug 2016 05:29:44 GMT

Author: boyd94

Posted: 08/23/2016 09:29

Muslim-Bigfoot wrote:

therefore you should evaluate it as if it's by an anonymous artist.

I would agree that this is an important exercise, but I don't think we should limit ourselves to this one line of inquiry.

For example; a Lovecraft text is formally and structurally the same before and after learning how much of a vile racist lunatic Lovecraft was, but that biographical knowledge is, to me at least, useful and elucidating with regards to the text itself, including texts that aren't explicitly racist. His oeuvre is that of a deeply paranoid and insecure man, horrified by the Other, the unknown and the rudderless chaos of the Universe and his racism follows from that.

Re: Point of Discussion: Separating The Artist From Their Art

RoundTheBend — Tue, 23 Aug 2016 01:22:30 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 08/23/2016 05:22

Muslim-Bigfoot wrote:

I trust Roland Barthes on these matters; no matter what my psychological reaction actually is, the logical thing is that since any work of art could have easily been by an anonymous artist, and also based on the fact that physically it'd have been the same thing before and after you get to know about the artist, therefore you should evaluate it as if it's by an anonymous artist. Nobody quite does this though and that's just the way human brain works; always more complicated than simply logical.

Well said... this is exactly why formalism or other efforts to focus only on the text is important and still valid... of course it isn't the only way, but totally a still very valid and important point of view or lens through which to see the art.

Re: Point of Discussion: Separating The Artist From Their Art

Muslim-Bigfoot — Sun, 21 Aug 2016 21:01:30 GMT

Author: Muslim-Bigfoot

Posted: 08/22/2016 01:01

I trust Roland Barthes on these matters; no matter what my psychological reaction actually is, the logical thing is that since any work of art could have easily been by an anonymous artist, and also based on the fact that physically it'd have been the same thing before and after you get to know about the artist, therefore you should evaluate it as if it's by an anonymous artist. Nobody quite does this though and that's just the way human brain works; always more complicated than simply logical.

Re: Point of Discussion: Separating The Artist From Their Art

Anonymous — Sun, 21 Aug 2016 20:54:29 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 08/22/2016 00:54

Rhett wrote:

Fair enough, as long as you are always ready to assume that the artist is an unreliable narrator and may delight in throwing fans far off the trail.

Absolutely, but like even noting an artist's propensity for misleading fans from their "truth" can itself be valuable insight into how their mind works, and by extension what their art might ultimately mean to you

Re: Point of Discussion: Separating The Artist From Their Art

Rhett — Sun, 21 Aug 2016 19:28:52 GMT

Author: Rhett

Posted: 08/21/2016 23:28

>>Let me clarify, I'm not saying that when an artist explains their work we should just take their word for it, but rather whatever an artist has (or doesn't have) to say about their own work can be used to help inform our own individual conclusions. It's just more information that can be valuable in the formation of an informed opinion

Fair enough, as long as you are always ready to assume that the artist is an unreliable narrator and may delight in throwing fans far off the trail.

Re: Point of Discussion: Separating The Artist From Their Art

Anonymous — Sun, 21 Aug 2016 18:10:17 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 08/21/2016 22:10

I do not think there is only one acceptable answer to this question. A critic, a socialite, a DJ, a casual fan, they all approach music with different purposes. I think a critic would be negligent to disregard the artist when discussing their work, but a casual fan would be fully justified in turning a blind eye to an artist's vagaries if it were to preserve an intimate relationship with their art.

Re: Point of Discussion: Separating The Artist From Their Art

RoundTheBend — Sun, 21 Aug 2016 17:13:09 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 08/21/2016 21:13

I know for me and my amateur attempts at music, I totally approach it in two ways:

1. the performer
2. the listener

I almost record everything we do with a shitty recording method just so I can view what we are working on from a listeners perspective. I interpret it differently even though I'm the same person.

So, yes, all fantastic points that although the artist has even stated some interpretation of the art, "this is what I get out of it blah blah blah", I don't think that is the end all be all version of the piece/text.

If people want to say Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds is about LSD... that's fine, that's their interpretation of it. Anyone who knows Beatles history will get their panties in a bunch, but heck, to be honest, I bet Paul and John would have a great laugh about it anyway. And it is a trippy song... so that is a valid interpretation. A bad interpretation would be like Sir Mix A Lot's Baby Got Back actually is about LSD...

Re: Point of Discussion: Separating The Artist From Their Art

Anonymous — Sun, 21 Aug 2016 16:40:13 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 08/21/2016 20:40

Rhett wrote:

>>the artist's interpretation of their own work is very important

Is it? Many artists don't believe this. Many refuse to explain their work (David Lynch, for one). And many hate criticism completely and would say either someone enjoys a work or they don't. Artists often say the work just came to them. It forced its way out of them.

I'm always highly suspicious of an artist who is also an explainer.

Let me clarify, I'm not saying that when an artist explains their work we should just take their word for it, but rather whatever an artist has (or doesn't have) to say about their own work can be used to help inform our own individual conclusions. It's just more information that can be valuable in the formation of an informed opinion

Re: Point of Discussion: Separating The Artist From Their Art

RoundTheBend — Sun, 21 Aug 2016 16:29:03 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 08/21/2016 20:29

boyd94 wrote:

This is where the theory falls down, on its premise. It's just blatantly, demonstrably untrue.

I can understand that from a position of criticism is best to make as few assumptions as possible, I guess it's a more sound 'logical' approach, but that strikes me as art criticism trying to be something it's not.

There are schools of thought that propose the text to be ultimately arbitrary and meaningless in a vacuum, without an audience to interpret and invest meaning into it, each 'consumer' (for lack of a better word) doing so in a different way, rendering the text mutable. I wouldn't go that far. From all the theories of criticism I've studied, and there have been a few, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Each of author, text and audience are important to varying degrees.

I think I'll respond with what I think you are trying to say, which is while formalism has merit, yet there are limitations to saying an artistic event exists by itself. It's obvious outside influences exist (as I originally posted).

This is totally true in the sense that if formalism was the end all/be all of criticisms, we wouldn't have 58198445 other forms of criticisms.

Your point to interpretation... there's a critical theory called Reader Response Theory, which I've talked about a couple times on this site, where their argument is almost similar to the philosophical question of "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" type experiment. Basically the argument is that the text (when I'm saying text, I mean all forms of art) doesn't exist until it is interpreted.

When it comes to music, I think we've all experienced the "oh it was me not the album" in the sense that we grew to understand it (possibly even hated it, the first go around), yet the album never changed... the response to it did... the art actually doesn't exist in the music, but in the interpretation of it.

I think that's an absolutely fantastic idea. Does it also have its limitations... you bet.

I love this topic (I majored in literary criticism, with emphasis in German literature) and realized that the king of it all is pluaralism... this idea that truth can truly exist at many different levels and that's ok. Having Truth with a capital T, typically leads to untruths and misconceptions/not fully understanding something. Take color for example... when we look at a color we say that an object is that color, yet the truth is "the color of an object is not actually within the object itself. Rather, the color is in the light that shines upon it and is ultimately reflected or transmitted to our eyes." (something I just made up... haha... just kidding I googled some lame definition, I don't consider myself a scientist in any form).

Anyway... long live pluralism.

This is a great "criticism" for dummies book/a fantastic reference to many forms of criticism that I highly recommend (as reviewers state it is an introduction): https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Experience-Literacy-Reading-Criticism/dp/0787200123

Re: Point of Discussion: Separating The Artist From Their Art

RoundTheBend — Sun, 21 Aug 2016 16:15:17 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 08/21/2016 20:15

dividesbyzero wrote:

the artist's interpretation of their own work is very important, but only insofar as it might provide greater insight to inform ultimately individual interpretation. I'm not suggesting the audience is more important than the artist so much as once the art is brought into the existence, the artist becomes the audience to the same extent as anyone else. They have more insight into what ideas were present in the creation of the work, but I really don't think their perception of the final product is the end-all for artistic interpretation (even if it is significantly more informed), or really even any more right or wrong than anyone else's, but then again I don't think "right" or "wrong" apply or even really exist in reference to interpretations of art

Wow... really well said.

In that vain, I'll quote myself too... although not as well said... hahaha:

Quote:

Both sides of the argument from a theory perspective allow for multiple interpretations and all of them have merit to them.

I think all critical theories have merit. They all have their limitations and they all have their ability to help us see stuff we normally wouldn't think about or realize without looking through their lenses.

I do typically like things like New Historicism or Gender Studies, which recognize that reality isn't linear and it isn't a simple cause and effect, but a web of influences.

Re: Point of Discussion: Separating The Artist From Their Art

Rhett — Sun, 21 Aug 2016 14:19:28 GMT

Author: Rhett

Posted: 08/21/2016 18:19

>>the artist's interpretation of their own work is very important

Is it? Many artists don't believe this. Many refuse to explain their work (David Lynch, for one). And many hate criticism completely and would say either someone enjoys a work or they don't. Artists often say the work just came to them. It forced its way out of them.

I'm always highly suspicious of an artist who is also an explainer.

Re: Point of Discussion: Separating The Artist From Their Art

Anonymous — Sun, 21 Aug 2016 05:49:04 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 08/21/2016 09:49

boyd94 wrote:

This is where the theory falls down, on its premise. It's just blatantly, demonstrably untrue

based on this logic, certain things in life must simply have intrinsic meaning/value independent of observation. If this is the case, who decides what these intrinsic values are? Who has the power to determine an objective right and wrong? If something possesses "meaning" in an unobserved vacuum, from where does it derive its meaning?

Quote:

I can understand that from a position of criticism is best to make as few assumptions as possible, I guess it's a more sound 'logical' approach, but that strikes me as art criticism trying to be something it's not.

This is extremely vague. What is art criticism trying to be in this scenario that it is not?

Quote:

There are schools of thought that propose the text to be ultimately arbitrary and meaningless in a vacuum, without an audience to interpret and invest meaning into it, each 'consumer' (for lack of a better word) doing so in a different way, rendering the text mutable. I wouldn't go that far. From all the theories of criticism I've studied, and there have been a few, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Each of author, text and audience are important to varying degrees.

I'll just be lazy and copy/past a thing I said in an earlier PoD that I believe applies

dvidesbyzero wrote:

Re: Point of Discussion: Separating The Artist From Their Art

boyd94 — Sun, 21 Aug 2016 04:21:57 GMT

Author: boyd94

Posted: 08/21/2016 08:21

sethmadsen wrote:

Art stands by itself in a vacuum

Re: Point of Discussion: Separating The Artist From Their Art

RoundTheBend — Sat, 20 Aug 2016 16:45:10 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 08/20/2016 20:45

Rhett wrote:

Good points. Plus, we don't really know these famous people. Our views are filtered. Do we really know that someone known as a dick is really a dick? Do we know that an evil person was always evil? We like to pretend we know more than we do. We love judging others. It's one of most popular hobbies.

Exactly... I had this one professor that would rip into people who would write ANYTHING along the lines of "the aritst was portraying blah blah blah"... you don't know that... prove to me how you know that.

What's closer to the truth is just because some news article or historical thing happened, doesn't prove causation. It's like calling Paul Simon a racist because of Graceland. That's an oversimplification. The reality is we don't really know, but at the same time we can't discount the shady stuff either. Was it on purpose... did the Aftrican musicians themselves want it/knew the consequences... did Paul understand/know what he was doing at that time, in which case we are only blaming Paul Simon... what about his manager/record company... who had the final say? To my understanding we really only know 10% of the story (unless someone wants to do 500 hours of solid investigative work and not just a couple internet blogs).

Instead, focus on the music itself. Is the music good or is the music bad? The rest People Magazine can waste their time with.

Re: Point of Discussion: Separating The Artist From Their Art

Rhett — Sat, 20 Aug 2016 16:21:37 GMT

Author: Rhett

Posted: 08/20/2016 20:21

Good points. Plus, we don't really know these famous people. Our views are filtered. Do we really know that someone known as a dick is really a dick? Do we know that an evil person was always evil? We like to pretend we know more than we do. We love judging others. It's one of most popular hobbies.

Re: Point of Discussion: Separating The Artist From Their Art

RoundTheBend — Sat, 20 Aug 2016 16:12:46 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 08/20/2016 20:12

Of course I kill the discussion... hahaha 😢 🧱

Re: Point of Discussion: Separating The Artist From Their Art

RoundTheBend — Fri, 19 Aug 2016 00:22:09 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 08/19/2016 04:22

Very interesting topic. So incredibly excited this is back. Thanks Rocky! �'� �'� �'�

There are entire literary critics who believe that you can't take outside influences of the art into question when critiquing art. Art stands by itself in a vacuum and we can only honestly and truly critique the text itself. No outside factors matter. That includes the artists personal beliefs and actions. Formalism is mostly based off this. You can never really know what an artist was thinking while writing/creating the art, so why try? Unless they say it themselves through the primary text. There are perfectly normal people that write about gruesome stuff... if you read about Goethe, he talks about his "Daemon" that possessed him... the natural genius that more or less "really wasn't him"... Bono talked about No Line On the Horizon being stories that were totally made up and had no personal relevance. Art can exist outside of that person.

The best music I've written was with others. It was this almost chaotic moment where planets aligned and we just "spoke" with each other through music... we all talk about how it was something outside of us and had we attempted to write that just by ourselves, it would be difficult to create something as such... this lends to the whole... that music actually had nothing to do with us as individuals... assholes or not... it had everything to do with being in that moment and the synergy that existed at that time. Personal hygiene had no factor or the fact that someone is homosexual or heterosexual, or was a communist or fascist.

Having said that, I think there's both sides to the coin. It is almost a chicken and the egg argument. Of course the education level, the psychosis, the political and religious "beliefs", the social status, the economic status of an individual is going to effect the art. I remember reading somewhere about a writer asking someone to punch him in the gut so that he could actually experience what he was writing about. Experience plays a part in art.

Both sides of the argument from a theory perspective allow for multiple interpretations and all of them have merit to them.

Personally:

I never care about negative personal aspects of an artist. It's about as interesting as People Magazine. Or as Rocky pointed out about Jack White and what shoes did Michelangelo wear.

If Beck is or is not a Scientologist... guess what... he writes freaking amazing music regardless.

If someone is a total dick in real life... but writes great music, their music is still great. If their music is dick like and they are Mother Theresa in the flesh, then their music is still dick like.

I am more or less a firm believer in pluralism... you can have both (a dick artist with great music) and you can respect the music if it is respectful, but that doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bath water.

Somehow positive aspects influence me to like it more... not sure why that is. A bit hypocritical, right? Like Dave Grohl for example... what I know about the guy is he is really down to earth. Somehow that makes me like his efforts more... I know I just said that should matter, but somehow it does.

Re: Point of Discussion: Separating The Artist From Their Art

RockyRaccoon — Thu, 18 Aug 2016 15:08:33 GMT

Author: RockyRaccoon

Posted: 08/18/2016 19:08

BrandonMiaow wrote:

No, I just meant that I feel like a majority of his fans ignore his racism and never consider it at all. They put blinders up. You can like his music sure but you're kind of a jerk if you don't at least acknowledge he is racist. If you do then I don't really see a problem in liking his music. I was being kinda snarky to Eric Clapton fans for no reason though lmao

Haha ok, that makes sense then

Re: Point of Discussion: Separating The Artist From Their Art

Rhett — Thu, 18 Aug 2016 14:35:52 GMT

Author: Rhett

Posted: 08/18/2016 18:35

By the way, anyone who has missed Beware of Mr Baker might want to check it out.