I think there also needs to be a distinction between artists who are dead (and thus cannot benefit - financially or otherwise - from their art being praised), and artists who are still alive (and thus able to accumulate wealth, fame, influence, and prestige when people promote their works, and to use that wealth and status to promote hateful ideas).
That's difficult for me now, because I was forced to throw away from my life those musicians and artists who support the war, repression, and the regime (I'm Russian). That's happening right now... what about dead famous people it's easier
basically my rule of thumb too, but in particular, it boils down to whether supporting an artist's work (with money, or even just with public mindshare) results in them _continuing_ to make the world a worse place. sometimes a living artist who's been awful in the past, has recognized that and turned it around! and sometimes a dead artist's legacy has active, ongoing repercussions. it's worth recognizing both of those cases when they happen (but especially the latter tbh, looking at you Walt).
@@jerseygunz Yes! So agree. And because you can say that it happened in ye olde times - and could never happen now. Sometimes I'm surprised by how recently people can talk like this (and sometimes I catch it coming out of my own mouth)
I feel it's important to recognise good art can come from flawed or even outright horrible people, as presuming the quality of work correlates with the quality of person can blind us to when a person uses their good work as a cover for their harmful behaviour.
It's like the myth of the Great Person in general. I can simultaneously recognize talent and refuse to buy or otherwise support their work. If someone makes a huge contribution of their field, yes, recognize that, along with context, and the other people who worked toward that contribution.
I think it can be great and valuable to experience art first independently (just me and the art), then in context of the artist (what was the events and philosophies of the time it was created), then in the intention of the artist. This can allow us to create our personal meaning for the art and separate it from the artist and before before our relationship with the art becomes infused with our impression(s) of the artist. That said... if the artist is alive today, and if by viewing or interacting with the art there's some value to them (monetary, attention, clout), it does behoove us to learn about the artist so that if they are not being or behaving as a benevolent human then we're not supporting them and the harm they are inflicting.
Short answer is YES. Art should always be on its own merit. The art should reflect on the artist, not the other way around. This is especially true as time passes and standards change, for both the art and the person. Picasso was a jerk sometimes, but the art is still something special. For all we know, Shakespeare could have been a total scumbag, but the plays are still phenomenal. Add to that the fact that people can change a lot over their own lifetime, and then how do you navigate their body of work with that in mind?
it's not wise to look at art one way or the other exclusively. you can, and should examine art both separately from their artists, as well as with the context of the artist's life informing them.
I think there are a number of questions you can ask for this. Does the artist benefit from your attention? If they do, what are they likely to do with their gains? If they're dead, is there an estate that benefits and what do they do? Are the problems reflected in the work? Does it do so directly, or is it just a matter of interpretation knowing the context? Etc. For example, a number of years ago there was a movie made of Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game. In interviews Card said that he would donate a large part of any money earned to anti-gay causes. That influenced my choice of not going to see it. Though I must say that as I get older I look back ever less fondly on the book anyway, and the movie wasn't very well reviewed, which made it easier.
I think the title question is quite complicated sometimes. Like, for a lot of the artists seen in art galleries, many of them like Van Gogh are long dead and buying prints of his art isn’t going to go toward further exploitation of teenage girls or supporting an abuser. However, in more modern contexts, JK Rowling has gone off the transphobia deep end shifting her entire online accounts to hating trans people at every given opportunity and regularly donates to transphobic politicians in the UK. As much as I loved the Harry Potter books growing up, I can’t in good conscience continue to do so in adulthood (well, that and other concerns within the books I did not recognize in my ignorance as a child, but that’s a longer tangent). So, it really depends for me how much I can continue to like a thing like if doing so benefits someone causing harm.
That's the rub with mass media as a whole. A single terrible person who is an artist doesn't ruin a whole art movement, but if a seed of a tree is rotten, is the whole of what it creates rotten?
Very well put. It's always good to look at art of any kind critically and understanding the flaws of an artist is important to understanding what they create (since art is often personal). That doesn't mean all their works are bad, but recognizing context is imperative. That being said, just as you said, enjoying the work of people who are long dead doesn't necessarily continue supporting their thoughts or beliefs. It's easier to take pieces that are good and recognize, but reject the things that are bad, since they are long gone. It's just important to recognize where those questionable or outright bad things appear since it was a part of who they were and that can't be ignored. I'm not good at writing down my thoughts well. Long story short: Agreed. Also, attempting to blacklist and punish those who are dead does nothing for us. It's important to take what there is and move forward with it, whether it be trying to celebrate the good and recognize the bad or outright rejecting it all together should be a personal choice. To be objective about it, Scholars should look at it from all sides in an academic setting. But individually everyone has the right to reject anything they consider too offensive.
I’m happy to see Sarah back on the production team here after closing The Art Assignment. I really enjoy listening to you talking to us about art history ! Missed you !
I think we should separate art from artist that lived in the past but we can't do the same nowadays. Because most of popular artists are also influensers.
I don't know, like do we only do it for people who said/did bad things? Because, to take a famous example, Artemisia Gentileschi's experiences and inner feelings are clearly reflected in her paintings. I'm more in favour of putting things back into their context but not ignoring how an artist's bad traits influenced their art. And considering that humans are complex beings, with people who are AHs sometimes producing beautiful things.
I think societal context is also an important factor. If there is active discourse about a topic like abuse of power during the me too movement or trans rights and racism today, it is more difficult to separate the artist from their art if the artist is actively participating in said discourse. Others have pointed this out but I also think it was a bit of a cop out to only mention artists who are dead. The meat of the question is in dicussing how to separate the artist from the art if the artist is alive.
Not whatsoever, because that person is involved in their art. Human beings are complex, and each one is different. Separation is the lazy "feel good" way out. I call this living in the gray.. because nothing about humanity is strictly "good" or "bad", there's so much gray involved.
This applies to ALL types of "art" and creative output. Music, literature, photography, film, ssculpture, paintings etc. Very interesting subject. In my opinion, yes. Their art speaks for itself. And I enjoy it. I don't have to think about the person when I'm listening to a piece of music I like, picture or book. So many musicians, actors, athletes etc.. all embroiled in scandals, SA charges, fraud, etc. Its sad, of course.. but when you think about it. How many people do we love that have never been caught!
To be honest, if it is something personal I can relate to, I feel betrayed, so I won't owe them any loyalty and I'll openly express my disgust for the person.
I think we should do this, or operate in the grey. It’s similar with other situations where there’s a « maker » and a « product ». We’re all human, even the worst of us, so I don’t think the more absolutist ways of viewing each other are appropriate. Some inventions, art, discoveries etc. were made by evil or dubious people. That’s the truth, and I don’t think we should lie or omit any details. In the modern day, I would say this still applies. If we are all equal, and we all have the right to things like income, a house, family, etc. then the bad artists also have these rights. However if someone abuses their public status, they can be justifiably removed from it. Like a bad cop or politician. In these cases, people are redeemable.
we are all human and imperfect (which makes for good art)! we can also elevate people and stories that are inspiring and not cringe. but like, i still listen to the smiths when i’m sad
I separate the two, not doing so makes zero sense and proves how naive we all can be. Think about it, if the character of your favorite musician matters so much, why not do extensive research on an artist before you start listening? Otherwise, you are assuming they are a saint, which is extremely naive. I don't listen to music or look at paintings because of the character of the artist. I honestly don't care much about the artist at all. They could remain anonymous for all I care. I care about the art and only the art. Now, if the artist did something to personally offend me, then yeah, I might stop supporting simply out of spite, but other than that... I never idolize the artist to begin with, I just appreciate the art.
This was quite a topic to take on, but just the person to do it! I do miss The Art Assignment, so I'm glad to see this series. I studied Art & Religion at the Graduate Theological Union (when Jane Dillenberger, Doug Adams, Alex Garcia-Rivera, and Peter Selz were all there), & while my focus was theological aesthetics, I really miss all the discussion of art, & hearing my fellow students whose focus was art history give such incredible papers.
This question always pops into my mind when I think about Hitler being an art student. What if he were really good and made beautiful paintings? Also think of it when I hear the Beatles and think about how abusive John was known to be.
If the artist does not separate themselves from their art, I don’t think we can or should do it for them. It’s decontextualization for the sake of preventing discomfort of the viewer
I would like to look at a deeper dive into this question with modern figures, not just nuanced artists. Is there a line between a person and their body of work? How much is the line blurred when the person is a body of work?
I think we have to be very careful in subscribing modern sensibilities to classical artists. While there are actions that are wrong and have always been wrong, there are some things that were common in the time of the artist that we might find problematic or even reprehensible now. And it is vital to both the history and future of art that we look at the art as its own thing. If we tie every piece to its creators and people start eliminating the ones we find troubling to our 21st-century morals, we are going to find that there are very few artists left.
Totally agree, artists should be viewed through the historical/cultural/social lens of their time, and not measured by modern perspectives on morality.
"It was a different time!" is a phrase one should use sparingly, lest it becomes powerless. What is moral today is different from what was moral then and what would be moral in the future.
I appreciate the attempt at optimism here but just because people may have handwaved, for example, Picasso's abusive and misogynist behavior when he was alive, that doesn't mean it was okay that he consistently engaged in that behavior in the first place. The only modern part about this is that, now, people are more willing to call out the abusive behavior in real time while those involved are still alive.
Sometimes I think the name f the artist becomes the selling point and not that the art. I remember when a painting was suppose to be by David, and was found to be done by a woman it went from front and center to storage, but the art didn't change.
So basically this is about the Death of the Author, the philosophical question about whether or not we should judge a work of art based on the behavior or morals of the artist.
Don't the actions and beliefs of artist help form how they see and interact with the world? That has to have an impact on the art. At the same time, art also takes on a life of it's own.
That's not what death of the author is. Death of the author is about art interpretation. The idea that it doesn't matter what the artist meant by their work of art. When a piece of art is out in the world all that matters is the receiver's interpretation.
"Death of the author" is more about whether we should consider an artist's comments/clarifications subsequent to their publication of an artwork as canon, or instead to treat works as entirely self-contained narratives. The title of the trope is misleading as it's about the artist being figuratively dead once they publish, rather than whether them having literally died should affect our enjoyment of their work.
I generally don't subscribe to the death of the artist. For example an author. The reader is free to find applicability and interpretations as they see fit, but unless the author intended it, those AREN'T themes of the work itself. That is, an art can be used by others in their own way, even a way counter to the artist, but its canon meaning remains dictated by its creator and the rest is outside interpretation. But remember, we can only interpret things according to how we perceive them. So non-canon interpretation has value and enriches the art and viewer. We just need to keep in mind that the relationship between both perspectives. They are valid at the same time.
I'd like to enjoy their art. I just don't like to give my resources so they continue to live, ESPECIALLY letting them live their lifestyles that are really just not worth the "great work" we are too obsessed with and insistent on labeling on theirs. Like why we can't we just praise good work from good people?
Great video, thank you. I would love to see something surrounding the newer "Dark Art" artist. Their rapid growth might put them with the old masters one day but they get little coverage.
I like are explanations of the different art periods. Clearly art evolves. Is art a reflection of the culture of time and place, A driving force of culture, or both?
Why does current art (especially on the internet) look so different from the one in the past? And why is it not in museums even though it looks really cool?
I kinda like that there are horrible people in the arts. It's supposed to be an outlet and if it only attracted scholars and well in the head human beings, it would be super boring. With that being said, try and be good to people and yourselves. If you don't like what a living artist is doing, don't support it
Are they dead? Yes? Then seperate away. Though do consider their viewpoint when engaging with their work. No. Then STOP GIVING THEM ATTTENTION. end of story.
Good topic. I felt this way towards sexual harassment stuff in the industry. But in regard to my personal art, I love the ancient art where the artists put their “creative essence” into the work so it could be re-experienced by another person.
@@bondfoolWhile I imagine there would be more room, the amount of art lost to time grows faster. The number of unseen artists are multitudes more than the artists we do see. And those who are unseen are usually lost to time. Art reflects humanity, both good and evil. I personally think a certain Austrian drop-out paintings should be preserved with context rather than art being completely naïve and context-less.
As I saw I notification, my next was waiting, waiting for the video to start. Love your voice and always curious about next episode content and release date❤❤
We see this all the time on TV and the movies. A lot of actors think that being talented in front of a camera means they have opinions on things that are not acting that are more important than us viewers. And most of those are morons at best - evil thugs at the extreme. So we are already well practiced on separating exercise of skill from moral character.
You can't separate the artist from the art because the art is what comes out of an artist. If an artist fills themselves with horribleness what comes out is horribleness, grace with grace, interest with interest, care with care. The best artists don't just do art, they live their lives well.
I was a huge Woody Allen fan. Now I can’t watch his movies. It saddens me because I want to continue enjoying his art, but it’s simply very difficult for me to separate the artist from his works. Perhaps the fact he is still alive is really a factor
No. Can't separate them. Shouldn't either. And if I had a choice between them, I'd rather not have the art. Justice and integrity and goodness matter most.
What art? Can you define it? And while you are at it, can you define what constitutes an artist? You are asking to tie a product to a person who made a product. Well, if you do not consume, you may throw the first stone. Beause you by virtue of being human are not just and not integer, none of us are nor ever have been.
I think the real problem is not knowing how to support the art without directly supporting said problematic artist
I think there also needs to be a distinction between artists who are dead (and thus cannot benefit - financially or otherwise - from their art being praised), and artists who are still alive (and thus able to accumulate wealth, fame, influence, and prestige when people promote their works, and to use that wealth and status to promote hateful ideas).
Yes!!
I think it's possible, but typically it is easier to do when the author is dead.
Because you aren’t directly supporting them
Exactly, when all our money doesn't go to sustaining their physical (and honestly excessively controversial) life, perhaps
That's difficult for me now, because I was forced to throw away from my life those musicians and artists who support the war, repression, and the regime (I'm Russian). That's happening right now... what about dead famous people it's easier
basically my rule of thumb too, but in particular, it boils down to whether supporting an artist's work (with money, or even just with public mindshare) results in them _continuing_ to make the world a worse place. sometimes a living artist who's been awful in the past, has recognized that and turned it around! and sometimes a dead artist's legacy has active, ongoing repercussions. it's worth recognizing both of those cases when they happen (but especially the latter tbh, looking at you Walt).
@@jerseygunz Yes! So agree. And because you can say that it happened in ye olde times - and could never happen now. Sometimes I'm surprised by how recently people can talk like this (and sometimes I catch it coming out of my own mouth)
I feel it's important to recognise good art can come from flawed or even outright horrible people, as presuming the quality of work correlates with the quality of person can blind us to when a person uses their good work as a cover for their harmful behaviour.
It's like the myth of the Great Person in general. I can simultaneously recognize talent and refuse to buy or otherwise support their work. If someone makes a huge contribution of their field, yes, recognize that, along with context, and the other people who worked toward that contribution.
I think it can be great and valuable to experience art first independently (just me and the art), then in context of the artist (what was the events and philosophies of the time it was created), then in the intention of the artist. This can allow us to create our personal meaning for the art and separate it from the artist and before before our relationship with the art becomes infused with our impression(s) of the artist. That said... if the artist is alive today, and if by viewing or interacting with the art there's some value to them (monetary, attention, clout), it does behoove us to learn about the artist so that if they are not being or behaving as a benevolent human then we're not supporting them and the harm they are inflicting.
Couldn't have said it better myself!
Short answer is YES. Art should always be on its own merit. The art should reflect on the artist, not the other way around. This is especially true as time passes and standards change, for both the art and the person. Picasso was a jerk sometimes, but the art is still something special. For all we know, Shakespeare could have been a total scumbag, but the plays are still phenomenal. Add to that the fact that people can change a lot over their own lifetime, and then how do you navigate their body of work with that in mind?
it's not wise to look at art one way or the other exclusively. you can, and should examine art both separately from their artists, as well as with the context of the artist's life informing them.
I think there are a number of questions you can ask for this. Does the artist benefit from your attention? If they do, what are they likely to do with their gains? If they're dead, is there an estate that benefits and what do they do? Are the problems reflected in the work? Does it do so directly, or is it just a matter of interpretation knowing the context? Etc.
For example, a number of years ago there was a movie made of Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game. In interviews Card said that he would donate a large part of any money earned to anti-gay causes. That influenced my choice of not going to see it. Though I must say that as I get older I look back ever less fondly on the book anyway, and the movie wasn't very well reviewed, which made it easier.
I think the title question is quite complicated sometimes. Like, for a lot of the artists seen in art galleries, many of them like Van Gogh are long dead and buying prints of his art isn’t going to go toward further exploitation of teenage girls or supporting an abuser.
However, in more modern contexts, JK Rowling has gone off the transphobia deep end shifting her entire online accounts to hating trans people at every given opportunity and regularly donates to transphobic politicians in the UK. As much as I loved the Harry Potter books growing up, I can’t in good conscience continue to do so in adulthood (well, that and other concerns within the books I did not recognize in my ignorance as a child, but that’s a longer tangent). So, it really depends for me how much I can continue to like a thing like if doing so benefits someone causing harm.
That's the rub with mass media as a whole. A single terrible person who is an artist doesn't ruin a whole art movement, but if a seed of a tree is rotten, is the whole of what it creates rotten?
Very well put. It's always good to look at art of any kind critically and understanding the flaws of an artist is important to understanding what they create (since art is often personal). That doesn't mean all their works are bad, but recognizing context is imperative. That being said, just as you said, enjoying the work of people who are long dead doesn't necessarily continue supporting their thoughts or beliefs. It's easier to take pieces that are good and recognize, but reject the things that are bad, since they are long gone. It's just important to recognize where those questionable or outright bad things appear since it was a part of who they were and that can't be ignored. I'm not good at writing down my thoughts well. Long story short: Agreed.
Also, attempting to blacklist and punish those who are dead does nothing for us. It's important to take what there is and move forward with it, whether it be trying to celebrate the good and recognize the bad or outright rejecting it all together should be a personal choice. To be objective about it, Scholars should look at it from all sides in an academic setting. But individually everyone has the right to reject anything they consider too offensive.
I’m happy to see Sarah back on the production team here after closing The Art Assignment. I really enjoy listening to you talking to us about art history ! Missed you !
I think we should separate art from artist that lived in the past but we can't do the same nowadays. Because most of popular artists are also influensers.
If this is partly about accountability, then I agree.
I don't know, like do we only do it for people who said/did bad things? Because, to take a famous example, Artemisia Gentileschi's experiences and inner feelings are clearly reflected in her paintings. I'm more in favour of putting things back into their context but not ignoring how an artist's bad traits influenced their art. And considering that humans are complex beings, with people who are AHs sometimes producing beautiful things.
I think societal context is also an important factor. If there is active discourse about a topic like abuse of power during the me too movement or trans rights and racism today, it is more difficult to separate the artist from their art if the artist is actively participating in said discourse. Others have pointed this out but I also think it was a bit of a cop out to only mention artists who are dead. The meat of the question is in dicussing how to separate the artist from the art if the artist is alive.
I missed the Art Assignment videos, so glad to see videos on art history from Sarah again!
Right?
Not whatsoever, because that person is involved in their art. Human beings are complex, and each one is different.
Separation is the lazy "feel good" way out. I call this living in the gray.. because nothing about humanity is strictly "good" or "bad", there's so much gray involved.
This applies to ALL types of "art" and creative output.
Music, literature, photography, film, ssculpture, paintings etc.
Very interesting subject. In my opinion, yes. Their art speaks for itself. And I enjoy it. I don't have to think about the person when I'm listening to a piece of music I like, picture or book.
So many musicians, actors, athletes etc.. all embroiled in scandals, SA charges, fraud, etc.
Its sad, of course.. but when you think about it. How many people do we love that have never been caught!
To be honest, if it is something personal I can relate to, I feel betrayed, so I won't owe them any loyalty and I'll openly express my disgust for the person.
I think we should do this, or operate in the grey. It’s similar with other situations where there’s a « maker » and a « product ». We’re all human, even the worst of us, so I don’t think the more absolutist ways of viewing each other are appropriate. Some inventions, art, discoveries etc. were made by evil or dubious people. That’s the truth, and I don’t think we should lie or omit any details.
In the modern day, I would say this still applies. If we are all equal, and we all have the right to things like income, a house, family, etc. then the bad artists also have these rights. However if someone abuses their public status, they can be justifiably removed from it. Like a bad cop or politician. In these cases, people are redeemable.
we are all human and imperfect (which makes for good art)! we can also elevate people and stories that are inspiring and not cringe. but like, i still listen to the smiths when i’m sad
Phenomenal episode, thank you Sarah Urist Green and Crash Course team!
I separate the two, not doing so makes zero sense and proves how naive we all can be. Think about it, if the character of your favorite musician matters so much, why not do extensive research on an artist before you start listening? Otherwise, you are assuming they are a saint, which is extremely naive. I don't listen to music or look at paintings because of the character of the artist. I honestly don't care much about the artist at all. They could remain anonymous for all I care. I care about the art and only the art. Now, if the artist did something to personally offend me, then yeah, I might stop supporting simply out of spite, but other than that... I never idolize the artist to begin with, I just appreciate the art.
There r people even now like musicians where I'm like, "ah they make great music but why are they so toxic? Ah I don't like it ugh"
"The open-hearted vulnerability of this work"
Oh, bravo.
This was quite a topic to take on, but just the person to do it! I do miss The Art Assignment, so I'm glad to see this series. I studied Art & Religion at the Graduate Theological Union (when Jane Dillenberger, Doug Adams, Alex Garcia-Rivera, and Peter Selz were all there), & while my focus was theological aesthetics, I really miss all the discussion of art, & hearing my fellow students whose focus was art history give such incredible papers.
This question always pops into my mind when I think about Hitler being an art student. What if he were really good and made beautiful paintings? Also think of it when I hear the Beatles and think about how abusive John was known to be.
If the artist does not separate themselves from their art, I don’t think we can or should do it for them. It’s decontextualization for the sake of preventing discomfort of the viewer
I would like to look at a deeper dive into this question with modern figures, not just nuanced artists. Is there a line between a person and their body of work? How much is the line blurred when the person is a body of work?
Yes! Those are great questions.
I adore these Art courses, I hope you do one for music too!
I think we have to be very careful in subscribing modern sensibilities to classical artists. While there are actions that are wrong and have always been wrong, there are some things that were common in the time of the artist that we might find problematic or even reprehensible now. And it is vital to both the history and future of art that we look at the art as its own thing. If we tie every piece to its creators and people start eliminating the ones we find troubling to our 21st-century morals, we are going to find that there are very few artists left.
Totally agree, artists should be viewed through the historical/cultural/social lens of their time, and not measured by modern perspectives on morality.
"It was a different time!" is a phrase one should use sparingly, lest it becomes powerless. What is moral today is different from what was moral then and what would be moral in the future.
I appreciate the attempt at optimism here but just because people may have handwaved, for example, Picasso's abusive and misogynist behavior when he was alive, that doesn't mean it was okay that he consistently engaged in that behavior in the first place. The only modern part about this is that, now, people are more willing to call out the abusive behavior in real time while those involved are still alive.
Sometimes I think the name f the artist becomes the selling point and not that the art. I remember when a painting was suppose to be by David, and was found to be done by a woman it went from front and center to storage, but the art didn't change.
So basically this is about the Death of the Author, the philosophical question about whether or not we should judge a work of art based on the behavior or morals of the artist.
Exactly
Don't the actions and beliefs of artist help form how they see and interact with the world? That has to have an impact on the art. At the same time, art also takes on a life of it's own.
That's not what death of the author is. Death of the author is about art interpretation. The idea that it doesn't matter what the artist meant by their work of art. When a piece of art is out in the world all that matters is the receiver's interpretation.
"Death of the author" is more about whether we should consider an artist's comments/clarifications subsequent to their publication of an artwork as canon, or instead to treat works as entirely self-contained narratives. The title of the trope is misleading as it's about the artist being figuratively dead once they publish, rather than whether them having literally died should affect our enjoyment of their work.
Thanks for the perspective Sarah.
thank you for covering this topic, I think its starting a discussion thats very relevant right now. a wonderful video :)
It seems like I have this problem every week when my favorite artists is cancelled. I want to humanize them but also they don’t deserve it
Amazingly explained 😊
I generally don't subscribe to the death of the artist. For example an author. The reader is free to find applicability and interpretations as they see fit, but unless the author intended it, those AREN'T themes of the work itself.
That is, an art can be used by others in their own way, even a way counter to the artist, but its canon meaning remains dictated by its creator and the rest is outside interpretation.
But remember, we can only interpret things according to how we perceive them. So non-canon interpretation has value and enriches the art and viewer. We just need to keep in mind that the relationship between both perspectives. They are valid at the same time.
Great videos as usual! 😄 really appreciating this series (finally!)
love this insight and commentary on both art and culture!
2:28 Andy Serkis could play Goya
Interesting to consider.
thank you for this series!!!!
It's good to see such masterpieces
What was the song during the Frida party?
I'd like to enjoy their art. I just don't like to give my resources so they continue to live, ESPECIALLY letting them live their lifestyles that are really just not worth the "great work" we are too obsessed with and insistent on labeling on theirs.
Like why we can't we just praise good work from good people?
I can do both, it's not always easy
Great video, thank you. I would love to see something surrounding the newer "Dark Art" artist. Their rapid growth might put them with the old masters one day but they get little coverage.
Depends if they are deceased or not I think. If they are alive and you are purchasing their art, you are supporting them or even endorsing them.
A great disappointment of mine was missing that Gauguin show when it was in the MASP while I had a layover in São Paulo
I like are explanations of the different art periods. Clearly art evolves. Is art a reflection of the culture of time and place, A driving force of culture, or both?
Musicians are the hardest
Why does current art (especially on the internet) look so different from the one in the past? And why is it not in museums even though it looks really cool?
Thanks 🔆
Short answer yes
I kinda like that there are horrible people in the arts. It's supposed to be an outlet and if it only attracted scholars and well in the head human beings, it would be super boring. With that being said, try and be good to people and yourselves. If you don't like what a living artist is doing, don't support it
Hi Crash Course! Can you include an episode on AI and art - if not in the main series, as a Recess or podcast episode?!
Amazing
Imagine artists complexly
The answer is yes obviously
Are they dead?
Yes? Then seperate away. Though do consider their viewpoint when engaging with their work.
No.
Then STOP GIVING THEM ATTTENTION. end of story.
Good topic. I felt this way towards sexual harassment stuff in the industry. But in regard to my personal art, I love the ancient art where the artists put their “creative essence” into the work so it could be re-experienced by another person.
I like great art from a good person.
Absolutely, yes. Otherwise, we would have too little art.
Would we? Or would there just be more room for the celebration of art by un-shitty people?
@@bondfoolWhile I imagine there would be more room, the amount of art lost to time grows faster. The number of unseen artists are multitudes more than the artists we do see. And those who are unseen are usually lost to time. Art reflects humanity, both good and evil. I personally think a certain Austrian drop-out paintings should be preserved with context rather than art being completely naïve and context-less.
@@bondfoolYou would literally have to throw out most historical culture.
I try to separate the art from the artist even if its hard at times.
As I saw I notification, my next was waiting, waiting for the video to start.
Love your voice and always curious about next episode content and release date❤❤
YE OLDE EMOS XDDD
In the case of music if we don't separate them from their art, we'd have very little to listen to.
Pirate the art then .
The perennial question and will possibly continue…
Obviously yes, but it boils down to our understanding of what Death of the Author means
Yay Fridah😌
How about Salvador Dali and his love of Hitler-Eesh!
❤
I think if the artist is alive and monetarily benefiting from their work, you cannot separate it.
Adults should be capable of separating content from creator.
Sadly, most people today aren't adults. Or only see in monochrome.
But should they?
We see this all the time on TV and the movies. A lot of actors think that being talented in front of a camera means they have opinions on things that are not acting that are more important than us viewers. And most of those are morons at best - evil thugs at the extreme.
So we are already well practiced on separating exercise of skill from moral character.
Yes but i mostly refer to writers
Not seperating the art from the aritist is saying their personality and personal life is just as valid and important as the art and work they create
You can't separate the artist from the art because the art is what comes out of an artist. If an artist fills themselves with horribleness what comes out is horribleness, grace with grace, interest with interest, care with care.
The best artists don't just do art, they live their lives well.
It’s a subjective choice.
Of course
yes, we most definitely should.
I was a huge Woody Allen fan. Now I can’t watch his movies. It saddens me because I want to continue enjoying his art, but it’s simply very difficult for me to separate the artist from his works. Perhaps the fact he is still alive is really a factor
Judging anyone from the past by current moral standards is a foolish game.
No.
This is a false dilemma. I like the art, not the artist
Picasso 😂 was a dangerous man
Harry Potter forever
Hate the sin, not the sinner & Love the art, not the artist? Maybe that's to cliche...
Bad people should be forgotten.
No. Can't separate them. Shouldn't either. And if I had a choice between them, I'd rather not have the art. Justice and integrity and goodness matter most.
What art? Can you define it? And while you are at it, can you define what constitutes an artist?
You are asking to tie a product to a person who made a product. Well, if you do not consume, you may throw the first stone. Beause you by virtue of being human are not just and not integer, none of us are nor ever have been.