Should art be judged according to the character of the artist?

When evaluating a work of art, should the character or backstory of the artist be taken into account, or should the work itself stand on its own merit?

For instance, take a piece of music, which, on its own, seems a mediocre work (the question of subjective vs. objective standards is a different thread). Would the revelation that the composer is 12 years old change your opinion of the piece? Is the music itself now a better piece of music taking into account the age of the artist?

Now consider Richard Wagner. Wagner wrote some of the most brilliant music ever, in many ways redefining the course of Western "classical" music as well as dramatic convention and even theater design. He was also an unrelentingly arrogant, megalomaniacal, anti-semitic, misogynistic, hypocritical, general all-around ass. Should that knowledge affect one's appreciation for his music?

Discuss!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fachverwirrt

For instance, take a piece of music, which, on its own, seems a mediocre work (the question of subjective vs. objective standards is a different thread). Would the revelation that the composer is 12 years old change your opinion of the piece? Is the music itself now a better piece of music taking into account the age of the artist?

---

The music remains mediocre, but the artist is exceptional. Taken in the context of compositions written by twelve year olds, it may be at the top of the game but in general it remains mediocre. That's not to say it's bad or the kid shouldn't be proud, but it's only indicative of potential skill later on and precociousness now.

Quote:

---

Now consider Richard Wagner. Wagner wrote some of the most brilliant music ever, in many ways redefining the course of Western "classical" music as well as dramatic convention and even theater design. He was also an unrelentingly arrogant, megalomaniacal, anti-semitic, misogynistic, hypocritical, general all-around ass. Should that knowledge affect one's appreciation for his music?

---

No. There are a lot of artists I like who are controversial figures, but by liking their art I'm not liking them. Who they are as people is separate from their artistic achievements. Roman Polanski's ability to direct did not evaporate. By the same token, artistic achievements don't excuse being a horrible human being, no matter how hard we might wish it otherwise.

I really think Wagner is an excellent example. I'm not sure I'd want to share the same restaurant dining room with him, let alone a table. But for all the "bombast" within his operas, there is a lot of that music that I really love.

With me, what more often happens is that with a historical work, I'll encounter the work, first - and evaluate it in a vacuum. It was this reading of Ezra Pound that left me convinced that he was a pretentious ass. Finding out the truth of the artist and his actions with Mussolini's Italian government simply confirmed my view of the artist, and his works. If I'd liked the poetry, I'd have held my nose and kept enjoying it. As it is, I enjoy knowing I hate the poems, and that the artist deserves my scorn.

With contemporary artists, it's not often the case that one will come at the art cold like that. There I have had both reactions: prejudging a work because of the artist's reputation, and refusing to prejudge the work for the same reason. A lot of it depends upon the artist in question, and why I may or may not have a negative view of them. I can't give a hard and fast rule.

I think the ideal should be to approach a work of art blindly - without researching it, or prejudging the artist. Then after one has begun to appreciate the work, seeing the context of the work can further illuminate the piece. Probably the best example I can think of now of something that seems to me to be saved from obscurity by its historical context is The Slaughter of the Innocents 1565-66 by Pieter the Elder Bruegel. When I first look at the work, I am struck by the lack of perspective, which leaves me confident of the date, and less than impressed. (Yes, I have a very modern view of most paintings. I know it's a flaw.) The colors are bright, but not compelling to me, and otherwise I find it to be a pedestrian image, not worthy of much note.

It's when one combines the title, with the time, and the historical context - the deliberate identity of the Spanish troops with Herod's from the New Testament, that the piece becomes weightier, and begins to be noteworthy to me.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

No. There are a lot of artists I like who are controversial figures, but by liking their art I'm not liking them. Who they are as people is separate from their artistic achievements. Roman Polanski's ability to direct did not evaporate. By the same token, artistic achievements don't excuse being a horrible human being, no matter how hard we might wish it otherwise.

---

Having said that, there comes a point where it seems to me that it's reasonable to refuse to appreciate the art of an artist who has shown himself to be a horrible person. That's not a judgment of the merits of the work as art, however - ISTM that's a judgment of which artists one wishes to support.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OtakuLoki

Having said that, there comes a point where it seems to me that it's reasonable to refuse to appreciate the art of an artist who has shown himself to be a horrible person. That's not a judgment of the merits of the work as art, however - ISTM that's a judgment of which artists one wishes to support.

---

Absolutely. Even if Mel Gibson made the greatest movie of all time, I'd probably not pay to see it simply because I don't want to encourage the man.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

The music remains mediocre, but the artist is exceptional. Taken in the context of compositions written by twelve year olds, it may be at the top of the game but in general it remains mediocre. That's not to say it's bad or the kid shouldn't be proud, but it's only indicative of potential skill later on and precociousness now.

---

I think that's right. Now, would it make you more likely to listen to the piece in the future? Does it impart more interest in the piece, even if the quality is the same?

I think that I would spend more time listening and analyzing a mediocre piece by a twelve-year-old than I would the same piece by a 30-year-old.

Is it possible to totally separate the art from the artist?

Whether you should or not seems irrelevant to me, because you can't. Art is fundamentally about context because it's a manner of communication between two people. I don't think we have the capacity to ignore that context, even if we decide that we 'should' for whatever reason. I'm not going to try to do something I can't do.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

Absolutely. Even if Mel Gibson made the greatest movie of all time, I'd probably not pay to see it simply because I don't want to encourage the man.

---

I get this but I still remember Brave Heart as a fun movie that I enjoyed and I know they have aged terribly, but I know I enjoyed the first Lethal Weapon. It is easy to hate the man but he made movies I liked, even the Mad Max movies. On the other hand you are correct that he won’t get another penny from me.

Insofar as art is communication, the same question can be asked of the posts on a message board. Should the content of posts be judged according to the character of the poster?

A successful artist will ensure that this question need never be asked. While individual works of art need not be considered independently of an artist's character, the intent of each work should not be obscured or overwhelmed by it.

If an artwork demands that its audience consider extraneous information in order to appreciate it, that had better be its intent, or else the artist has failed to communicate.