Artists contaminating their works

[SomeRandom]

I’m a pretty big believer in separating the art from the artist
But I’d be lying if I said that present revelations about certain artists colour their works in hindsight.
I’m not speaking of “cancelling” anyone or whatever. I don’t care about that sort of thing in the long run
I’m talking about public scandals of artists that may shine a different lens onto their work.
Like Joss Whedon
I grew up on his “feminist creations”
But the recent accusations about him caused me to interpret the media through a different lens. That’s not his fault, it’s just a consequence of media analysis.
Sometimes detrimentally so.
But artists are people and people are flawed. So I don’t think we should expect flawless masterpieces all the time either. Something can be relatively groundbreaking but beholden to time constraints at the same time.
So… comments? Questions? Replies?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I feel the same. However, I am careful about financially supporting artists if I feel my money may be used in a manner I don't want it to.

For instance, if I knew a particular artist supported Donald Trump, I may simply admire public displays of their art and not buy them because I don't want my money going to Trump through his scams...I mean political contributions.

 

[PureX]

Too much money and fame tend to insulate people from the normal everyday consequences of interacting badly with others. And the bad behavior tends to become more exaggerated over time because there are no real consequences to necessitate correction as there would be under 'normal' circumstances.

This isn't an issue that effects just artists. It's an issue that can effect anyone that gains excessive notoriety as a money-maker for other investors. Greed is a kind of behavioral gravitational force that warps normal human interactions in favor of, and often to excess, anyone that can generate big profits to those around them. And as a result those people get treated like demigods so as to keep those profits flowing. And I think that living in that kind of hyper-protective bubble can really warp a person's perspective on reality, especially in terms of basic human interactions, when they experience no negative consequences.

Keep in mind this is all about product production for profit. It's not about art. Making art is not making products for profit. Though few Americans will understand or appreciate that there is a difference, and that it's an important difference.

My point is that this is a social disease, not a creative one. It's not Whedon the creative writer that has become such a jerk toward others, it's Whedon the Hollywood money pump. And in fact it's a disease that is very likely to infect anyone that becomes a money pump for any set of investors. And that includes artists that need to collaborate with others to express their vision. Something which is very common in theater.

 

[wellwisher]

Art, like any profession, is often about selling and making money. If you conform your art to the latest social fads, they will sell easier. Some of the marketing is already done for you.

If you are in a Progressive city, you will need to pander and create art that tells them what they want to hear. One can sell a cross in urine to an Atheist, since that is who they are. If your audience is religious you will to do something that is more like a scene of tranquility.

The suffering artist, maintaining the truth of their inspirations, is a hard road to follow, when the con artists, artists, have an easy life by knowing their audience and how to pander.

Years back I dated an artist, who was good at selling ay art shows. She was very pretty and personable and could sell her art at a good price. Along with her sale pitch, was the agreement that she would come to a dinner party for her clients, present her work to their guests, and mingle with the guests. She knew how the play the game like a pro, and could earn a living off her art. She did not wish to be the suffering artist, but rather learned to know her paying audience.

If I was selling art to the wealthy abortion crowd you would need to capture their outrage or make their goal look like it is divine. Tell them what they want to hear. Art is about subjectivity and moving the audience, emotionally in ways that loosens their wallets. At least until, you are famous and then you can become more eccentric, since that also sells.

 

[PureX]

Art, like any profession, is often about selling and making money.

What a heart-breakingly sad point of view.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

But artists are people and people are flawed. So I don’t think we should expect flawless masterpieces all the time either. Something can be relatively groundbreaking but beholden to time constraints at the same time.

Well my problem isn't really with the character of people creating art, my issue seems to be with the content of the art itself, speaking here as being a musical artist myself.

Balancing 'innovative' sounds, with what I want to work on, which is 'folk' music in the English language, is hard, because I'm not really sure what the expectations are. And I've rambled about this before. With modern technology, I can take a flute track, and put guitar distortion on it, or take a mandolin track, and time stretch the notes and 'mangle' the audio in a 'cool' way. Or I could add instruments and rhythms that maybe 'don't belong' in the category. To me, it makes it sound interesting. I don't know if the wider audience would get it, or like it. I'm not sure I should care what they think

So again, for me, the constraints seem to revolve around how I should create the art. There is a lot there, without anything external to it. Who really cares who I actually am, I just want to put out a good product. You know what I mean?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So… comments? Questions? Replies?

Imagine is a great, wonderful song.
John Lennon, not so much.
Bill Cosby. Groundbreaking TV and striving to improve portrayals of black people in TV.
Bill Cosby the person? Hide your daughters and wives.

 

[Secret Chief]

If you are in a Progressive city, you will need to pander and create art that tells them what they want to hear.

And if you are in a Reactionary city, what do they want to hear?

If I was selling art to the wealthy abortion crowd you would need to capture their outrage or make their goal look like it is divine.

Please provide some evidence for your opinion. Otherwise it just reads like nonsense.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Art is about subjectivity and moving the audience, emotionally in ways that loosens their wallets. At least until, you are famous and then you can become more eccentric, since that also sells.

And yet many of our favorites and most beloved died in poverty, homeless and penniless with fame and recognition not coming until after death. Authors, painters, musicians, sculptors many of these were obscure in life. Thespians have frequently occupied the lowest rungs society.
Artists tend to make art even if they don't sell it. It's why they're called an artist.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Imagine is a great, wonderful song.
John Lennon, not so much.

Then again, his outcome may have been partially a result of a rough upbringing. I tend to think that most artists, to be artists, might have to have some level of ability to differentiated between being a good and bad person, even if they may fail to live up to those forms. It kind of precludes the creation of art, sort of, to be able to understand forms of aesthetic that are positive and negative. Or one would like to think so

 

[PureX]

In a culture that considers and treats EVERYTHING as a commodity to be sold for profit, people think the purpose of art is to entertain, because that's an experience that can be sold for a profit. But although art may sometimes entertain us, that is not why it exists, or why artists do it, or how to tell if it's good art or not.

And the behavior of an artist, unless it's captured and is a part of the artwork, doesn't have anything to do with it either. Once the artwork is finished, it stands on it's own. So there is really no logical reason to conflate the artist's personality with the artworks he or she produces.

Theater gets a bit more convoluted, though, because it's a collaborative art form. There are many creative people contributing to the end result and the whole endeavor becomes a "production company" as part of the process. Bands and orchestras do this as well. And of course individual behavior becomes an a factor under those conditions. Although, I personally think we should let the results stand on their own.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Then again, his outcome may have been partially a result of a rough upbringing. I tend to think that most artists, to be artists, might have to have some level of ability to differentiated between being a good and bad person, even if they may fail to live up to those forms. It kind of precludes the creation of art, sort of, to be able to understand forms of aesthetic that are positive and negative. Or one would like to think so

Lots of people had difficult and rough childhoods and didn't turn out like him.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Lots of people had difficult and rough childhoods and didn't turn out like him.

A necessary qualification of my statement indeed