kink said:
this statement presupposes that all art is permanently subjective, which is unproven. While quality and objectivity are often at odds with each other when it comes to evaluating a piece of art, the fact that we have techniques and methods for approaching art in certain ways demonstrates that we have aesthetic understandings of what art attempts to convey. And if the contextual message has a strong push towards being a negative message, then it's a negative message. There are many poems written by old slave owners that cry about losing their slaves. Definitely art, but not necessarily something worth caring over or supporting. Not all knowledge is worth exploring. Not all opinions or conversation pieces are worth talking about.
What are you even trying to say here? Objective / Subjective is an entirely binary concept, it either is objective or it is not, in which case it is subjective. Objectivity simply does not exist in the same conversation as artwork, if it did then the concept of "taste" would not exist at all and we would not even be having this conversation in the first place. It is not up to me to "prove" subjectivity more it is up to you to somehow prove there is an objective measure to art in the first place. Methods and techniques for creating artwork are simply guidelines, the equivalent to mapping out a section of land by following the footsteps of your predecessors. They are not objective simply because they are commonly used, rather they are an easy method for people get involved in the process of creation. The act of creation is not about taking the same concepts that have been used since forever and just rearranging them, but to use those concepts as stepping stones in order to create something new and original. The quiddity of originality defies objectivism because of this. Art attempts to convey a message however that message is often entirely up to interpretation; that is the basis of art critique. A negative message being a negative message is not always true. You see a negative message that is to be entirely discarded, a slave owner lamenting his lack of slaves and see no value in that. I see a poem lamenting slaves as an opportunity to learn the inner thinkings behind the concept of owning someone, and can use it to further better myself and my understanding of the world, as well as the culture that the artwork was created under. To completely discard it is folly as there is always value in creation. Creation is a method of externalizing the aspects of someone's thinking, culture, background in ways that simply cannot be expressed in simple words and is a great way to explore the fundamental aspects of the world, whether the creation is interpreted as good or bad is entirely up to the individual.
Hitler's Mein Kampf or Bill Cosby's Autobiography probably don't deserve your adoration. Not saying they do, in fact I'd imaging they don't resonate with you at all... but the fact that they don't demonstrate that some art is worth denouncing.
Why? I for one have no interest in reading either material as you say but that does not prove your point at all. You cannot extrapolate my personal, flawed, opinion and understanding of the world and art critique as the absolute nature of art. For what its worth, I would say that any autobiography, no matter who the person is, is a good form of art that can lead to better understanding of the most undesirable aspects of humanity.
Mein Kampf is as important to human history as any other artistical expression. I think the Guardian puts it best:
"Neither Hitler nor his ugly ideas came from outside history – to the contrary, they were a product of it. Hitler can only be understood, it follows, if he is read as an author like any other."
Yes actually, it creates a cognitive dissonance, and demonstrates that he was perhaps more complex and troubled than his songs explicate, though I always thought John Lennon was fighting crazy demons, and understanding that he's not perfect is part of understanding the beatles. There's a reason people say ignorance is bliss. The more intimiately involved you are in John Lennon's history of abuse, the less you're probably captivated by the Beatles.
Do you believe this is entirely true? I chose John Lennon because he is by and far my biggest inspiration as a musician, with, however cliche it is, the Beatles being one of my favorite groups to ever exist (and Lennon being my favorite of the fab four solo work). Hearing historical analyses about how he beat Cynthia, or how he neglected Julian for twenty odd years leads to a much greater appreciation of his work for me. Knowing that in "Getting Better" he regrets his past and attempts to move forward from his past mistakes ("I used to be cruel to my woman/I beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved/Man I was mean but I'm changing my scene/And I'm doing the best that I can") helps to humanize his myth to me, to show that he is just as human as literally everyone else. From an interview with
Playboy: "I couldn't express myself and I hit. I fought men and I hit women. That is why I am always on about peace, you see. It is the most violent people who go for love and peace. Everything's the opposite. But I sincerely believe in love and peace. I am a violent man who has learned not to be violent and regrets his violence. I will have to be a lot older before I can face in public how I treated women as a youngster." That is not cognitive dissonance per say but it is a realistic expression of the world and encorporates a negative message that can be absorbed in a positive manner, someone else's negative attributes that a listener can use to learn from. I do not condone Lennon's women beating, rather the opposite I find it abhorrent and the first time I heard of it it really put into perspective the glamorized history behind it, but I find that the duality really serves to heighten the appreciation of his art.
In this case you're right, because Kanye West himself is a deeply troubled bi-polar individual who is enabled by the people in his life and needs help. This doesn't make him any less of a genius, though, so no it doesn't affect the legacy of his music. Mental health is not the same as committing a crime against a vulnerable person.
As a psychology / philosophy double major I think you are being a little disingenuous here. You only hand wave away Kanye West's comments because you have some semblance of understanding behind his mental background (ironically, from comments he himself has made about his mental state, as if that is not as biased as it can get). It is easy to use mental illness from someone you understand as a shield but then demonize someone who you have no clue about their background or upbringing. What would you say about Charles Manson and his artwork (yes he created artwork -
here)? He very clearly had mental issues, most likely a form of schizophrenia, a delusional disorder, narcissism personality disorder, among probably a slew of other ego-related disorders. Does that excuse his history and actions knowing he was most likely insane? What about Hitler, who had paranoid schizophrenia and megalomania? This argument is deeply flawed because you cannot at one point excuse a problematic person and their art due to the mental illness they suffer from simply because you happen to understand them at some level and then reject the artwork of another person (who also most likely suffered from mental illness, as most problematic people do). Either you accept or reject all, cherry picking simply because you happen to aesthetically like the artist is the exact argument you preach against.
And I would just say, mental illness is ENTIRELY the same as committing a crime against a vulnerable person. A vast majority of criminals, both in modern and past times, have suffered from mental illnesses, both diagnosed and undiagnosed. Artwork is but one method to attempting to understand what that person suffers from. There is a reason that artwork has been used since clinical diagnoses have existed as a means of diagnosis. If you want you can read more about the methods of art therapy from
this link.
Yes. Profoundness is not an inherently good quality. However in this case, the context of knowing a book like Catcher in the Rye promotes more good than the harm associated with this author. But again, similar to the Beatles the closer you are to Salinger's markers of abuse, the less you probably care to read or be associated in any way with such a vile human being, beyond even that of academia.
On the contrary, I find Salinger's pedophiliac tendencies to be deeply intertwined with a full understanding of the novel. Simply a shallow reading without knowing the history leads to some superficial understanding of the novel on a high school reading level, while knowing the history of the individual who penned it can lead to a much more profound and enlightened understanding of the nuances of the novel. You again seem to assume that a negative history can lead to a negative (morally) understanding of the artwork, which I do not believe is true. There are many one can learn from something that may have a negative past.
I totally disagree with this. If you can can get over an artist's history, with no regard for who they were or what they did, then you purposefully and actively close your mind off to the truth of the world and in my view nothing could be more tragic than a caved-mind, though perhaps ignorance is bliss as it seems the jury is still out on this one.
"Getting over an artist's history" as you put it does not mean that you just actively close your mind off to how they are a terrible person. When I listen to "Crippled Inside" I do not simply forget that John Lennon did terrible things, it simply means I can extricate his past with my own personal interpretation of his art. I do not handwave and say "yeah he was an abuser but he he makes bangers." Life is not binarily good and bad but a mixture of grey, and I think you would find that next to almost 100% of artwork created has had some form of negative experience in that person's life. And even then when exactly do you stop? Where do you draw the line? Does an artist hitting his wife in an alcoholic rage automatically dismiss anything that he has or will ever create? What if the timeline was 20 years prior to actually making the piece of artwork? 10 years? 5 years? Are there some transgressions that are simply a product of their time and can be excused, such as the infamous Wagner anti-Semitism? Does racism carry the same weight as physical abuse?
Those are all rhetorical questions, but the point is that in the amalgamation of artwork you would be hardpressed to find an entirely Puritanical product, free of any moral corruption. Every single person has skeletons in the closet and the point is not to demonize and hold standards to the ethical actions of the creator but to look at its impact on the world at large, what it does to inspire future generations or further the creation of art mediums.
Ok... but could you ever think of a Hitler painting as a good painting? Could you ever say "Mein Kampf" is a terrific book?
What exactly do you define "good" and "terrific" to be? Good as in an aspiration for what all of humanity should aspire to be? Aesthetically good? Terrific in that it is revolutionary in providing new ideas to further society, or terrific in that it depicts the thoughts and musings of an incredibly troubled mind and allows a new perspective? I could absolutely say that Hitler was a "good" artist. Undoubtedly
his artwork was "good" by the supposed aesthetic standards you seem to be imposing. If you did not happen to know that that picture was by Adolf Hitler I would imagine that you would say whoever the artist was was very talented, with the ability to depict a realistic and exquisite setting. What are you trying to imply by "terrific?" I can view Mein Kampf as an enlightening experience into viewing the horrific ideas perpetuated by the Nazi movement, in an attempt to learn from the rhetorical tricks that Hitler used to sway the masses. Is it a "terrific" book in that the ideas are something that I resonate with and think should be enacted in this world? No. Something as vague as "good" or "terrific" have meanings that are entirely open to interpretation.
Touching back to my first point on your commend, I do agree that some art is subjective, but not subjective to the point where I can say something stupid, like "the beatles don't matter" and be taken seriously. Standards exist in conversation, just as how standards exist for the people who created the art, and these standards are only forgotten by the masses but never morally nullified.
The problem I see is that you are equivocating the moral "good" with the aesthetic "good" when they are entirely separate concepts. A good person is another entity compared to a good piece of art, or a good piece of food, or a good time. I do not see how you can both say that art is subjective (as you say here) but then also imply that art is objective (as you say in your opening rebuttal). I would like further explanation of this phenomena, as my understanding is that objective and subjective are opposites in essence.
edit: good thread
