Serious Art & The Artist

[xenu]

When judging a work of art how far can you, or rather how far should you separate your impression of the artist from your impression of the work? The "impression of the artist" here doesn't just include the artist's personal life and history, but their race, gender, sexuality, political and religious beliefs, socioeconomic and cultural background, etc.

Michael Jackson would be a pretty good example here - he's made some pretty good music, and while I'm not a fan of his or anything, I can still appreciate some of his music despite the accusations of pedophilia and child abuse leveled at him.

Orson Scott Card is vehemently anti-gay and even though I don't support his views I'm still a fan of his book Ender's Game. The book is considered for the most part a science fiction essential, but recently a reactionary wave of internet critics has scrutinized the book for homophobic undertones, and attempted to dismiss its status as an entry level sci-fi cornerstone because of the views held by its author. There's been a lot of people dismissing the long-established merit of his works in reaction to his views - certain members of the LGBT community even threatened to boycott the Ender's Game film even though Card wasn't involved in its production in any capacity.

Ayn Rand's ideology and works were in direct contradiction with her personal life, making her a hypocrite and disqualifying her philosophy.

I like to view art as self-contained and self-referential, independent of the artist, in line with the New Criticism, and so I've always been wary of aspects of the dominant Marxist critical school which takes into account the author's biographical circumstances when commentating on a work. Criticism of that sort IMO veers dangerously away from "literary criticism" and more into the domain of "political commentary". It allows critics to pan works that aren't in line with their views rather than just commenting on the craft and the structural and aesthetic merits of the work.

Thoughts?

 

[Soul Fly]

Yes... a very veneering method of applied criticism.
I get where you come from and it is a very prevalent line in the academic community where we create a distance between the artist and his work.

So for example when I'm looking at a Dali I'll look at it from a completely anonymous artistic perspective and not influenced by Dali's other traits (say his narcissism). While this may sound counterproductive to the idea of criticism this actually helps provide new perspective to the artist and his work and doesn't need to be bogged down by the baggage of the creator.

xenu, the new criticism you talk of is a product of the ideas in the post-structural period in literary criticism.
If you want to do any further reading on this line I highly recommend The Death of the Author- Roland Barthes for starters. While this essay post-dates the movement, it is considered an excellent text in literary criticism.

 

[billymills]

I see art as a method of conveying an idea from the artist to an audience. The artist has some idea in mind that he is trying to convey (often within the context of other work, or the time period, or otherwise), but it is not on the audience to pick up on that message. Each person has a different interpretation of each piece of art, that may or may not be what the artist intended. Each person then values the art differently, based on how well they believe the message they picked up on is conveyed. By critiquing art, a critic makes the art their own and gives it a new context.

I judge art by the impressions it makes on me and on others (though not everyone). The context in which i interpret it matters, but the context in which it was created might not.

I don't see art as self-contained and self-referential. I think it's created for an audience with a certain background. Perhaps familiar with certain works (biblical references, pop-culture references) or current events. I don't think art could (nor should) be separated from those elements. Though, this is another reason I don't value 'classics' as much as others. The older art becomes the less familiar we are with its intended context, and it only produces a weaker impression than modern works.


On another tangent, I think there is a clear divide between the Michael Jackson and Orson Card references. Orson Scott Card is alive, and may end up using any money or publicity to fund homophobic campaigns or similar. There is still room here to discourage people from reading the book, without criticizing its contents. This is judging the artist directly, not making any judgment about the art. Michael Jackson is dead and there is no analogous reason to avoid his work.

 

[veiva]

Awesome idea for a thread. I have to read "The Death of the Author" again, but for the most part I disagreed with it. A work can't stand on its own, or be independent of the influences that lead to its creation. If we look at "just the work," we might as well just read French poetry in its native tongue if we don't speak French (C. S. Lewis articulates this better in "An Experiment in Criticism"). Literature conveys more than just words, or literary mechanics--and this is why I disagree with most forms of criticism.

Reader-response criticism is a better suited criticism for those who do not have the experience to judge a work on other merits. I mean this in the sense that we can't determine how much of an impact Shakespeare's "As You Like It" is in the time period, then we should just look at our response to the work (our response can be on an individual level or a more general audience). You can't use a feminist criticism or apply the Marxist framework on a work like that. It's like complaining about an antique electronic flashlight not working with AA batteries (I think that's a good example. It's probably not).

I've got to cut this short because I'm heading to bed, but I'd like to address your point about valuing classics, billymills [oops, I put the wrong person initially]. I understand why you don't value them as such, but for me, the fun part is putting them in context. Hence why I enjoy "As You Like It" (it's my favorite of Shakespeare's plays): there's an atypical woman character [and it's even more fun when you realize it would have been a male playing a female acting as a male]). Fitting it in with the context of the time adds to the wit and humor, I think. Then again, T. S. Eliot is my favorite poet and I want to read Finnegan's Wake by Joyce...