Got into a discussion today about separating an artist from his work, and now I'm all messed up about it. See, my take on the whole thing, typically, is that if you appreciate the work, let it end there. In fact, I make it a point to not know about the private lives of the people who entertain me for fear that they will do something to ruin my image of them, and thus all further works will be diluted by this knowledge. This is in fact why I am no longer a member of the Britney Spears fan club.
Sometimes, this pays off. Take Van Gogh for example. Some of his best works (The Starry Night for example) were painted during a time in his life where he was, for all intents and purposes, pretty unbearable to be around. This is a guy who dealt with serious depression, to the point where he cut off his own ear, and eventually ended up shooting himself. Should this knowledge detract from my appreciation of his work? I don't know.
On the other hand, sometimes the knowledge of the artists dark past is required to fully appreciate the work. I love the band The Dresden Dolls, but every song they write seems to be about two completely different topics. If not for my lovely wife looking into it (happy birthday, sweetie!), I would have missed a lot of meaning behind these songs.
The problem is that there are a lot of in-betweens here, and the fact is, I won't typically let who the artist is as a person to heavily sway my feelings about their works. Bil Keane may be the nicest guy in the world, but that doesn't change the fact that I find The Family Circus to be the least funny thing since the Spanish Inquisition. Besides, allowing the artists personality to overshadow their works can lead to truly important art being lost, unappreciated, in the annals of history.
It is for this very reason that the world refuses to acknowledge the works of what was undoubtadly history's greatest jazz dancer: Adolph Hitler.
No comments:
Post a Comment