Point of Discussion: The Artist and the Art

[RepoMan]

[Norman Bates]

[Norman Bates]

[LevonTostig]

[Defago]

Hard. On one hand, I don't think who the artist is matters at all - if the music is good it's good, regardless of the artist being Mother Theresa or white supremacists. I think it'd be extremely silly and limiting to listen to an album and like it, but then decide you didn't like it after reading about the artist. What the artist does besides his art is separated from the art itself in the sense that you can perfectly appreciate one without knowing the other.

On the other hand, however, the art an artist creates is in a way a reflection of himself. If Kanye makes different music from Bon Iver, it's basically because they're different people with different ways of being, motivations, experiences, etc. The difference in their music is caused primarily because they're different people, and each artist's art's uniqueness stems from the fact that they're a unique person. As such, the art someone creates is intrinsically conjoined with who the artist is. So Mother Theresa's music would be what it is mostly because the artist who made it is Mother Theresa - we're bound to hear about solidarity and kindness, even if we don't know who she is. In a way, the message and the art itself is inseparable from the artist. After all, art is just a means of expression - and what can one express other than his oneself-ness?

So yeah, in a way, and in my opinion, music should be appreciated as separated from the artist (it doesn't matter if he's Hitler - if he made good music then he made good music) but also music can't be separated from the artist (since the whole idea of art is to express oneself using art as a mean.)

Also I agree that music that requires context to be appreciated is kind of failing at what it's aiming to do. On the other hand, context can help put the artist's message into perspective (which can have either a positive or negative effect on its appreciation - it's subjective).

[CubaZed]

I think I'm mostly with Defago on this.

Me personally though, I'm pretty good at separating the art and the artist and looking at their interpretation pretty objectively. I mean, even if an artist is at odds with my personal values, I'd rather experience their art as opposed to dismissing it. Even if they are "offensive" no one necessarily makes things without a reason and I'm honestly fascinated by differing opinions and stances.

Before Satiemaniac left their was an interesting thread similar to this about separating the art from the artist. Satie happened to make a really fascinating post that led about whether it was morally right to continue listening to Jimmy Page and David Bowie (because despite some of their hideous acts those remain unconnected from the music) while still avoiding artists like Woody Allen.

EDIT: Post is here

[craola]

I know squat about 98% of the artists I listen to. Unfortunately, I find it nearly impossible to separate the artist from the art the more I get to know the artist. Like was said earlier, artists tend to write themselves into their music - at least when lyrics are involved. The decision to leave lyrics out of the work says just as much about the artist as well.
_________________
follow me on the bandcamp.

[MrFrogger]

This has been a really interesting discussion so far, and I agree to some extent with most of what was said here, expect...

[Happymeal]

Haven't been able to read through the comments, but they probably explain this better than I can.

However, I would think it's more appropriate to state that the artist isn't the only thing that affects an experience. Any overlying context added can change an experience greatly which includes the artist itself. For ex. the show Always sunny in Philadelphia creates a brilliantly entertaining comedic endeavor, but the characters themselves are what're being mocked. Assuming these were real people, then it wouldn't be hilarious, it would create an emotional response of anger or frustration. Similarly, assuming I felt that the words spoken by an artist weren't convincing enough to be shown as real within the context of the lyrics, I would hate them.

The conclusion is that it's not about whether or not the artist is/isn't what it claims to be, but whether it convinces the consumers that it adheres to its story. At least, that's from my perspective.

[MrFrogger]