should an artist's life considered when considering art Anonymous 118105
i know genderhavers 'cancelled' jk rowling but i'm talking about more vile shit like rapist directors, misogynist philosopher etc. what do you think?
Sure you can consider how it influenced their art
art doesn't exist in a vaccuum, context is the most important part
if you're looking for reasons to dismiss artists you don't like I suppose you can use it to that end as well
it depends on what their work is like. for example lewis carol is almost definitely a pedo yet alice in wonderland is harmless and considered a childrens classic, but if a rapist director might have some questionable ways of talking about rape in his films. my rule for myself is just to take what i want, leave what i dont and dont monetarily support shitty men
I don't think is relevant for the quality of the art, but as anon have already said, context is necessary for understanding every piece of art, and it can be judged by it.
For example, consider that Dracula was published ten years later than Portrait of a Lady. The difference in the treatment of women as characters is incredible.
The best case scenario is enjoying something but if you know the person who made it is a piece of shit you don't pay them a dime
I belive that you should embrace things as they are and accept that most of the precious things in life cannot be pure and innocent.
The artist is the soul of the art, they cannot be separed.
Im into art, i discovered picasso, jackson pollack, and edward hopper all beat their wives, but it doesnt get much talked about.
i mean i can still enjoy art created by monsters, i liked chinatown even though polanski is a rapist
Death of the author. I don't care if they were saints or sinners behind production, all that matters is the end product evaluated on it's own. Knowing things about the artist/s behind the work is only fun, interesting or horrifying, and has zero to do with the quality of the work.
Anything else is "you just enjoyed a painting made by Hitler tier" which is retarded.
Art exists in a vacuum
Yes and no. Yes in that the artist by signing the work has included themselves in the piece. No in that something can just be entertaining/beautiful regardless of who made it.
Saying that, a lot of art seen as masterpieces are only considered that way because of publicity (Gustave Caillebotte insisting that the French government display the impressionist paintings everyone hated until then, other painters who were reviewed by critics in multiple countries more likely to be well known, works praised by other artists such as Banky’s “Exit Through the Giftshop” suddenly seen as worthwhile, etc) or because people are stupid and confuse the good feeling they get from recognising a work with being pleased by the artistry of work a work (why you like an album more after you’ve listened to it a few times). Basically people like art because they are stupid and are told or tricked into liking it. There’s no need for something considered a masterpiece not to be forgotten about when everyone realises how awful the artist is.
I think art is often hampered by the context in which it was created. If a man was/is a rapist it influences everything he touches.
I don't really care about it if their beliefs are not expressed in their work. I hate when "b-but muh ART" is being used to justify worshipping works with retarded beliefs being expressed in them (like misogynistic books for example).
Despite how much I disagree, you got a point. Exposure is everything needed this days to get recognition.
Real art catches the eye inmediatly, it is shocking, impresive and is full of expresion.
I found an amazing artist that I thought was a woman that drew stuff that really captured girlhood and female anger, then i found out he was a pedophile scrote who was aping art he saw on tumblr to groom girls. Even if the art is objectively good and relatable, i can’t really separate that from the reason it was created. But I still enjoy movies by roman polanski and woody allen, because I feel they aren’t directly connected to them being chomos.
"Artist I thought HAD to be a woman behind a pen name turns out to be a pedo dude" is what happened recently with me and Galko-chan. I'm still mad about it.>>118105
I like to know about the creator before I give things money. As an adult I have the luxury of pirating stuff then giving money to the IP through a physical copy or merch if it passes the sniff test.
It turned what I felt was a pretty good and nostalgic recreation of the dumb shit me and my friends in high school carried on with into pedo fanfiction. It absolutely is ruined retroactively, in a way that other media written by shit people really wasn't (Buffy/Angel comes to mind here).
I can assume it is because things that anon liked about this story as an observational comedy or smth turned out to be fetish matter for the artist
This is the reason why I can't nostalgia watch shows like Victorious and iCarly
Yes, but the point I'm confused on is she said it didn't apply in different instances. I don't want to be rude, but was the problem not that what was presented was inaccurate (because if it was, she herself would not have related to it in the first place), but is the problem more that it was accurate, it was relatable, it was "correct in it's interpretation" and yet it was made by the "wrong person" and this invalidates all the positive emotions derived thus far?
I understand she is stating "I don't like it anymore because it turns out it's fetish material" my questions is why would you let moids dictate how and what you enjoy by their relation to the material?
Same and I've said this on another thread before but knowing that my father likes to watch that shit makes me wanna kms holy shit
Wait why the fuck does your dad watch those shows? That's weird as hell
Allegedly because of the dumbass stupid humor but it breaks my heart to think that the real reason (at least in the case of Victorious where the characters look older, I don't want to believe that he would actually watch iCarly for the same reason) is that he's a fucking degenerate who is into teenagers
well it checks out since picasso and jackson pollack are trash. edward hopper is less trash but the vibe of his paintings is so austere and definitely consistent with a physically abusive moid