Can you separate the artist from their work?

[alicambs]

The problem with winter when the sun doesn't show itself (rare but it's been dull and rainy for quite a few days) is that my study gets very cold and my heater struggles to make an impact. We don't have central heating, this is New Zealand, land of the 'she'll be right and central heating is for wimps' but we do have a wonderful log burner which

Comments

[blamebrampton]

I do think that art should be judged on its merits, but some art has the biography of the artist as one of its integral merits

[alicambs]

but some art has the biography of the artist as one of its integral merits.

Very true and that means that separation, even after death is likely to be impossible. However, I think some would say that some of Rolf Harris's art is of value aside from the novelty of being done by him. As to Woody Allen, who knows, but as I've never much liked his work if matters little to me. And that is probably the difficulty, who decides upon the value of a work of art? I am told Wagner is superb, but I personally can only take so much and would prefer to listen to Queen any day, a rock band that has become a Classic in many, many ways and may well be remembered for decades to come. :-)

Of course, if I had my way, all artworks in every medium would be sold without biography. I think that would make music in particular very drab but concede that it would also make it a lot easier to judge on merit

[cross_stitchery]

i do agree that art should be judged on its own merits, but can understand, on a personal level, if someone doesn't want a painting by a known child abuser on their walls. and if they feel that the best way to deal with it is to destroy the painting, then again, that's a personal decision that i can accept. i wouldn't be in favour of a widespread campaign to root out every example of Harris' art and destroy it in some kind of purge. (can't help wondering what the Queen thinks about his portrait of her now

[alicambs]

can't help wondering what the Queen thinks about his portrait of her now That was the art work I chose to illustrate my question and the thought crossed my mind as well.

Yes to all you say re Rolf Harris, but I personally would be sad to see his work be destroyed. Some time after his death we may well be able to appreciate it for what it is rather than for what he turned out to be.

Woody Allen has not been prosecuted and the waters are so muddy there that who knows what the truth is, but as I don't like his work I don't support it or Polanski's in any way so that's easy!

[cross_stitchery]

and... PS: central heating *is* for wimps :D

[alicambs]

I acknowledge and own my wimpery. :-)

[ariss_tenoh]

I don't believe art can be separated from its creator when the creator/artist is still alive and well and causing headlines and seemingly not punished for his wrongdoing. As crossstitchery mentions, both Woody Allen and Roman Polansky are examples of this type of case and I can't help but wonder that if they were ordinary people, without fame/money/connections, they would have been convicted long ago and no one would debate about their link to art.

[alicambs]

I don't believe art can be separated from its creator when the creator/artist is still alive and well and causing headlines..

Amen to that, I don't think I'll be able to look at a Rolf Harris art work without linking it to what he has done for many, many years to come. Possibly because I liked him it makes it even more difficult.

It is also however true that great art can be done by people you would probably never want to meet never mind spend any time with so perhaps the proposal should be 'It is only after the death of its creator we can actually judge the merit of any artwork'.

PS sorry for duplicate and late edits but the last sentence wasn't quite right!

[byslantedlight]

Interesting question... I suppose it depends why you bought a piece of art in the first place. If you bought it because you liked it as art, then presumably you'd still like the artwork, but if you knew the artist had done something awful it might then make you think of the awful thing whenever you saw it. If you bought it because it-was-by-this-famous-guy! and then this-famous-guy! did something awful, then bad luck for you, because people are irredeemably, stupidly human.

If I had artwork by Harris - well I do, I have Two Little Boys on my mp3 actually - I'd feel sad not only because of the song (which is still sad in its own right, I think) but because my memories and thoughts of it are now changed.

If I had a Woody Allen dvd - well I wouldn't, because I've never liked his films, don't "get" them, and you can tell me he's as brilliant as you like and I'd still think Really? Why?, so to me he's just another man who's done awful things

[alicambs]

Before I reply to your answerer, I'll note it was realising that I'd not read never mind responded to your entries for weeks that pushed me to post!

I must point out that Woody Allen has been accused but not charged with abuse and that the situation is very, very muddy and no where near as clean cut as it first appears, but I so agree with you about his films.

You know, I think there just may be an even bigger picture...
You are SO, so right, and we've got children and adults dying in Syria, Iraq and the Gaza strip due to the actions of their leaders, but this was an ethics issue I chose to present and ask for my course. I wanted something relevant and 'in the present'. My other one was on whether cannabis should be legalised the day before 'Legal highs' were made illegal here.

[byslantedlight]

Oh excellent - in that case, I'm sure you owe me many more posts, now get on with it... *g*

And sorry, I worded myself badly/unclearly (shock! unexpected!) - what I was clumsily wondering, as an argument for your ethics question, was whether we can claim one reasoning artist's behaviour vs their art, when we claim a totally different reasoning to justify our own poor behaviour over made-objects. If we judge a t-shirt on its merits (it's cheap, it fits and I like it) and don't worry about a disagreeable background, then why do we judge art differently? Or vice-versa, if we feel we have to throw away Harris' art because it turns out he's done something terrible, then shouldn't we be going through our wardrobes/cupboards/etc. etc.? I'm not answering either way, just wondering... *g*

(And yeah, I realise the WA case is muddy, I just grabbed it from someone else's comment above - so lazy of me... *g*)

[alicambs]

Oh excellent - in that case, I'm sure you owe me many more posts, now get on with it... *g*
Pfft. :-)