The Truth behind the Artist and his Art

[Guest]

[WA2]

So lately I've been puzzling over this. When people make art, does it matter what the artist has done, what they represent, what meaning is in their art and what purpose there is in their art? I mean, say, Hitler came out with a brilliant piece f art, whether it was a book, painting, music etc., but would we still admire the art even though we know what Hitler intended, has done etc?

I've always thought that when you make something, a piece of you goes into it. I don't mean spiritually, but the way its made and the meaning it tries to give. If some evil or immoral (I know, loaded word) person makes something like music ( a common example), do we ignore the artist and the meaning in the art and just like the music, or do we decide to abstain from it?

[jrkulmer]

a good example of this is gary glitter, people genuinely did like his music, but jeez not now.

[Ploe]

Moved. No venom.

[Jay]

In the case of Glitter, the horrendous thing is hindsight - he made all these "gang" songs for a very young, even a pre-teen, audience and because of exterior circumstances, these songs acquired a new meaning. For instance, when I was twelve, we did a quiz with our music teacher and for one of the questions, a kind of guess-the-song thing, he played 'I'm The Leader of the Gang' and everyone went apeshit, and rightly so. It would have only been two or so years after, but I think how recent it was, and the fact that, to put it crassly, Glitter was the first real celebrity to be brought to public attention because of paedophilia, just shows how people didn't know how to react, and underesstimated how the art changed absolutely after the fact.   

[WA2]

So with the example of Glitter, we see how people's view of a song is affected by the meaning it may give, it's purpose or whatever, whether with hindsight or blatantly obvious. Yet, there are songs, even now, that may be considered immoral by some people (yes i know, immoral is subjective), and yet they may still listen to them. Has the case of Glitter allowed people to shut out the purposes and meanings just to enjoy sounds, or does the music itself matter to people who see the truth (i know) behind the music (or book, painting etc.)?

Does it matter?

[Jay]

Well, in regard to Glitter - I can't remember the last time I heard one of his songs on television or radio, which suggests his music has been quietly written out of it, so to speak. And I could say with a fair amount of surety that for plenty of people, its a knee-jerk reaction to gurn in disgust at the mention of the man's name. With person-to-person appreciation, individual experience with art, it might be that many people who liked Gary Glitter first time round still enjoy his music, and it may not matter for them, but what I think is that it becomes tainted and sadly, for more than just a few people, I think its hard to enjoy "just the sounds" when the music is so weighted down this thing that surrounds it. One of the key purposes for this music was that it was made for a very young and I daresay primarily female audience - and he had a very sincere and obessionally devoted young fanbase - and that that is now linked to the man's actions leaves a rather nasty taste in the mouth.

What songs do you think may be considered immoral nowadays, just as a case in point?

[WA2]

What about when the meaning is hidden though? Smarter ones can see it, yet still continue to listen and ignore it. Obviously, as you say, if it becomes seriously weighted down in your moral perception of it, then you wouldn't listen to it.

Well, at least to myself, I consider a lot of modern popular music immoral. I mean, a lot of it are about sex, clubbing, letting go of all worries and just enjoying life (as oppose to caring) and stuff like that. I don't mind so much that is just void of meaning and sounds alright, but I look at people like Lady Gaga and Rihanna (who incidentally use techniques in their music to get inside the heads of people by making it catchy etc) , who are also huge influences in young girls, not only make immoral or drivel-like music, but are immoral themselves, and inspire young girls to be like them, which disgusts me.

NOTE: Heavy use of my moral perceptions, please excuse that.

[Will]

I mean, say, Hitler came out with a brilliant piece f art, whether it was a book, painting, music etc., but would we still admire the art even though we know what Hitler intended, has done etc?

Are you saying Mein Kampf wasn't brilliant? 

[WA2]

No, which is why I said "whether it was a book, painting, music etc."
I must finish reading it. But it isn't exactly revered as one of the greatest books of all time.

[jrkulmer]

mein kampf, a brilliant insight into the mind of the most influential figure of the 20th century. whether we agree with it or not, its crafted devastatingly well.

[Will]

If I found out that one of my favorite artists did something which I consider immoral, I'd probably not enjoy their art as much.  Of course immoral for me encompasses not too many things. 

[WA2]

So would you agree that what the artist has done matters? What about on a smaller scale, but still may be considered immoral by some people?

Mein Kampf may be all fantastic, we don't nessescerily like it, do we?

[Will]

I was kidding with the Mein Kampf remark.  But yea, the artist can stigmatize the art IMO.  Not sure what you mean by on a smaller scale.   

[WA2]

Music that subtly influences modern young girls into becoming immoral....perhaps I've exaggerated that a bit, but that's one example.

[Will]

I don't listen to the type of music that subtly influences young girls to turn into whores.  I don't really consider that art, even though technically it is.  I think the Rhianna's and Lady GaGa's of the world are just trying to make money (hence me not considering them artists).  Apparently sex sells, but I don't think it's the music that makes the whore (I think it's vice versa).    

And one more thing about whores...god bless them.              

[WA2]

You may not listen to them, but at least in England, they have young girls by the balls.

[Will]

they have young girls by the balls.

I'm not quite sure how I'd like to interpret that.