Never meet your heroes

[SomeRandom]

So as the shockwaves of Rowling’s recent “controversy” let’s say, continue to ripple through social media, the fans are going through the grieving process of losing someone they probably looked up to for their entire lives. Metaphorically speaking, obviously.

I’m firmly for following the idea of the death of the author when analysing art, but it is hard not to constantly think about the artist’s views when looking at their art.
Possibly thanks to more scrutiny due to social media.

Lovecraft fans seem to have come to terms with his less savoury views, which apparently softened throughout his life.

So who are some of your toppled idols?
You first “mask off” moment?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Unfortunately most of my idols come from fiction making me look up to to the ideals from avatars from movies films and song and even my dreams.

If it does come from a real person of note it more has to do with the legend around that person rather than the actual person themselves probably.

I think my truest heroes in the end however are not really people who have mass recognition, but rather those exceptional people I've met in my lifetime on a personal level.

Two real people that don't mean nothing to anybody else but myself who goes by the name of Benji and Jennings in particular.

They're almost legendary figures in my eyes who actually altered the course of direction in my life.

They're not toppled persay, at least I don't think so, but it's a safe and sure bet I will never ever meet them anymore in my lifetime.

 

[King Phenomenon]

I can't think of any of my heroes that were disgraced

 

[Twilight Hue]

I can't think of any of my heroes that were disgraced

Is that what this is about?

Heroes like Christopher Columbus, Winston Churchill, General Lee, Ulysses Grant, Abraham Lincoln?.....

Find some dirt on them and then topple em. Heroes no more in one fell swoop?

That's the case, then I don't have any heroes.

 

[King Phenomenon]

Is that what this is about?

Heroes like Christopher Columbus, Winston Churchill, General Lee, Ulysses Grant, Abraham Lincoln?.....

Find some dirt on them and then topple em. Heroes no more in one fell swoop?

That's the case, then I don't have any heroes.

I thought it was. Maybe I miss read it.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

Learn to love and hate your heros, hating them is also a way of loving and loving is also a way of hating them.
It goes to show that there are many sides to a single person.

 

[SomeRandom]

I thought it was. Maybe I miss read it.

It’s up to your interpretation. I just meant in a general sense of finding out that someone who you may have once looked up to may be a flawed human like everyone else.
Like I idolised Roald Dahl as a little kid. Then I learned more about him and I dunno, lost that innocence in a sense. Still have all his books though lol

 

[Revoltingest]

So as the shockwaves of Rowling’s recent “controversy” let’s say, continue to ripple through social media, the fans are going through the grieving process of losing someone they probably looked up to for their entire lives. Metaphorically speaking, obviously.

I’m firmly for the death of the author, but it is hard not to constantly think about the artist’s views when looking at their art.
Possibly thanks to more scrutiny due to social media.

Lovecraft fans seem to have come to terms with his less savoury views, which apparently softened throughout his life.

So who are some of your toppled idols?
You first “mask off” moment?

You really wish her dead?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I can say I've not learned anything really disgraceful about George Carlin. And other than him I can't really say I've had any influences tremendous enough to be considered a sort of "hero." But, being fresh out of Christianity and a teen with a lack of real life positive male influences he set me off to a great start I would say.

Lovecraft fans seem to have come to terms with his less savoury views

I give not one **** or damn about them. I love his work.

So who are some of your toppled idols?

I learned early on with Wagner how to separate artist from art (and that was before social media). Which would later become necessary for many of the "dark" artist I enjoy, such as H.R. Giger.
But, with all this and that sad, the major shocker that still deeply saddens me is Bill Cosby. I still love his comedy (and laughed at the dentist think of his "my blip-ip is faba-at.") But his reputation, all the things he did, all the things he was, I am still utterly shocked by it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You really wish her dead?

I'm also curious. Maybe career death, perhaps?

 

[SomeRandom]

You really wish her dead?

Lol! I meant the philosophy of the death of the author. Sorry, poor phrasing on my part. I’ll amend my original post lmao

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Lol! I meant the philosophy of the death of the author. Sorry, poor phrasing on my part. I’ll amend my original post lmao

What is this philosophy?

 

[SomeRandom]

What is this philosophy?

You know, the death of the author, meaning you do not allow the author to interfere with your personal interpretation of their art. Basically authorial intent is not as important as the audience’s reaction/interpretation
Well I guess it’s probably not a philosophy, closer to school of thought. I’m kind of dumb lol

The Death of the Author - Wikipedia

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You know, the death of the author,

Obviously not.

meaning you do not allow the artist to interfere with your personal interpretation of their art. Basically authorial intent is not as important as the audience’s reaction/interpretation.

I have much to argue with that (as it would be true in some instances, but incorrect to do so in some instances), but that is what it is.

Well I guess it’s probably not a philosophy, I’m not sure what it falls under specifically. Art theory, interpretation??? I’m kind of dumb lol

Probably some literary critical theory thingy.

 

[SomeRandom]

Obviously not.

Oh my bad.

I have much to argue with that (as it would be true in some instances, but incorrect to do so in some instances), but that is what it is.

Well I don’t follow it exclusively myself.
Really “death of the author” is used in a lot of bookish circles I run in as a sort of shorthand to explain why you might very much like a piece of fiction but do not like the author, or otherwise consider their opinions as questionable, even incongruent to the fiction itself. Like how the series Harry Potter is literally against prejudice in both text and thematic elements, but Rowling well, has her prejudices.
Sort of like “problematic faves” I guess.

Probably some literary critical theory thingy.

Yeah I can agree with that

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well I don’t follow it exclusively myself.
Really “death of the author” is used in a lot of bookish circles I run in as a sort of shorthand to explain why you might very much like a piece of fiction but do not like the author, or otherwise consider their opinions as questionable, even incongruent to the fiction itself. Like how the series Harry Potter is literally against prejudice in both text and thematic elements, but Rowling well, has her prejudices.
Sort of like “problematic faves” I guess.

I'm aware of the concept (such as how when I indicated I learned to separate artist from art with Wagner), but I just haven't heard a name put on it.
But, ultimately, sometimes an artist has some real life stuff they pour into their stuff (Sam Shepard frequently and often has an absent alcoholic father, and Shepard's father was himself an absent alcoholic, along with many other similarities between artist and art), and sometimes it's just to explore taboo subjects (such as Rammstein's stuff, which lyrically is typically and often very dark, demented, and disturbing).
And then there's the real world of who the **** even cares? It is what it is and more often than not, in most pieces of art we have lost the subtle cultural contexts, specific "current events" references, and what the artist originally meant anyways. It's fun to let the mind play and think and explore, but critical theory, in my opinion, really does seem to miss the forest for the trees and forget that really underneath all this and that is a piece of art to be viewed and indulged in. Especially with fiction, it's not going to enjoy itself.

 

[Harel13]

It's probably best not to put people on a pedestal. Admirable figures are still human. Yeah, hard to believe, right?

 

[SomeRandom]

I'm aware of the concept (such as how when I indicated I learned to separate artist from art with Wagner), but I just haven't heard a name put on it.
But, ultimately, sometimes an artist has some real life stuff they pour into their stuff (Sam Shepard frequently and often has an absent alcoholic father, and Shepard's father was himself an absent alcoholic, along with many other similarities between artist and art), and sometimes it's just to explore taboo subjects (such as Rammstein's stuff, which lyrically is typically and often very dark, demented, and disturbing).
And then there's the real world of who the **** even cares? It is what it is and more often than not, in most pieces of art we have lost the subtle cultural contexts, specific "current events" references, and what the artist originally meant anyways. It's fun to let the mind play and think and explore, but critical theory, in my opinion, really does seem to miss the forest for the trees and forget that really underneath all this and that is a piece of art to be viewed and indulged in. Especially with fiction, it's not going to enjoy itself.

Oh I agree with you. Artists are people and their creations will often be a reflection of them, I think. Because your writing or painting or music will come from an abstract notion of emotional output. Wanting to say something or create something. Generally speaking, I mean maybe you just want to make money, I dunno.
And when analysing art in relation to the cultural zeitgeist, it’s probably not a good idea to divorce the art and artist completely. I mean what does the art say about the culture and what can one infer about its creator.

But I agree that that can also hamper the enjoyment of art in general. Why worry oneself if your favourite author was a racist 60 years ago when you can find comfort in your favourite book? Or why allow the artist’s opinions to dictate your interpretation? It’s art, enjoy it or critique it however you please.

When I say I support the death of the author, I think it’s just an easy way for me to say, I like the work but the creator can get stuffed as far as I’m concerned. Because I think that’s essentially how I was introduced to the concept lol

Art has many facets so it only makes sense that we will approach it in many different ways.

Although I still have trouble whenever like a member of a super leftist sounding band is proudly conservative in real life. It just seems a little weird.

 

[SomeRandom]

It's probably best not to put people on a pedestal. Admirable figures are still human. Yeah, hard to believe, right?

Lol that is true

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Although I still have trouble whenever like a member of a super leftist sounding band is proudly conservative in real life. It just seems a little weird.

I listen to music that is basically slasher amd snuff flicks in lyric form. The artists though obviously aren't raging psychoti lc serial killers. Marilyn Manson is a wild and fascinating gimmick and stage persona. Brian Warner is about as boring and bland a man as they get. So I don't really see why this would be odd.

And when analysing art in relation to the cultural zeitgeist, it’s probably not a good idea to divorce the art and artist completely.

Analysing anything in relation to the cultural zeitgeist can be problematic. This is how things today get banned for racist depictions even though the references are entirely lost on a modern audience. Like a handful of Tom and Jerry and Looney Tunes cartoons. By and large, no one would even know there is even any racism there going on because the references are so obscure, but we know anyways because this cultural zeitgeist allows these racist depictions to be brought up, made contemporary and current, and allows them to live on and breath a new life for a new audience that are now aware of these depictions, rather than just letting them remain buried in the past by obscurity where they belong.

Artists are people and their creations will often be a reflection of them, I think. Because your writing or painting or music will come from an abstract notion of emotional output. Wanting to say something or create something. Generally speaking, I mean maybe you just want to make money, I dunno.

Commissioned art is a reason we must be weary of making assumptions into interpreting art. It is possible, that for all we know, the real reason Da Vinci made such extensive edits to Mona Lisa, and all the enigmatic features of the painting are really just the result of a finicky patron looking for something unusual.
And, of course, what really was the intent behind "For sale: baby shoes, never worn."? It wasn't even actually Hemingway where that originates from.
Or another example would be what people claim is a Nietzschean influence on Ayn Rand, although Rand herself sternly denied this and, if I recall correctly, harshly criticized Nietzsche when she was asked about the similarities between Nietzsche's philosophies and Fountain Head.
Just read your Harry Potter.