Point of Discussion: Separating The Artist From Their Art - Music

RoundTheBend

I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

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

undefined

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

RoundTheBend

I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

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...

Allabaster

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.

Rhett

Gender: Male

Location: Oregon

>>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.

undefined

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

Muslim-Bigfoot

Gender: Male

Age: 35

Location: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch

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.
_________________
"I feel like for the last two years there’s been sort of a sonic evolution happening and I’ve been experimenting more and more."

RoundTheBend

I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

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.

boyd94

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.

Allabaster

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?