dubkitty wrote:if i judged art by the lives of the artists i'd have nothing to listen to at all.
No offense, but that's some weapons grade bullshit. Not every musician is either a stark raving lunatic or a complete asshole. Given that most musicians out there who aren't torturing women with burning crack pipes I'd say it's perfectly valid to judge an artist on their personal lives because art and artist are inseparable.
GardenoftheDead wrote:art and artist are inseparable.
see, i completely disagree with this. i think that if the art and the artist are inseparable, what you've got there is crappy art; good art should be able to stand independent of the artist's personality. to me, if a work of art has any meaning at all, it has meaning because of the relationship between the work and the person who interacts with the work. eventually the artist, and his context, is gone; Rembrandt and Beethoven speak to us because the common humanity of their work reaches out to us across the centuries independent of Rembrandt's bankruptcies and scandals and Beethoven's triumphs and tragedies. and Andy Warhol was the object of a media cult, but his ideas still stand though his image is now largely forgotten. besides, how large of a playlist are you going to come up with of morally correct artistes, and doesn't that smack just a bit of Tipper Gore and Mary Whitehouse?
In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
FIFTY YEARS OF SCARING THE CHILDREN 1970-2020--and i'm not done yet
GardenoftheDead wrote:art and artist are inseparable.
see, i completely disagree with this. i think that if the art and the artist are inseparable, what you've got there is crappy art; good art should be able to stand independent of the artist's personality. to me, if a work of art has any meaning at all, it has meaning because of the relationship between the work and the person who interacts with the work. eventually the artist, and his context, is gone; Rembrandt and Beethoven speak to us because the common humanity of their work reaches out to us across the centuries independent of Rembrandt's bankruptcies and scandals and Beethoven's triumphs and tragedies. and Andy Warhol was the object of a media cult, but his ideas still stand though his image is now largely forgotten. besides, how large of a playlist are you going to come up with of morally correct artistes, and doesn't that smack just a bit of Tipper Gore and Mary Whitehouse?
It does! One reason I try to not pay any attention to the personal lives of artists. they are called PERSONAL lives. Everyone has personality "flaws" and dirt. Im sure lots of artists whose music I adore I would thoroughly dislike in person. billy on the other hand goes out of his way to be a dick publicly so fuck him.
aen wrote:Or I'll just use fuzz. Then Ill sound cool regardless.
Achtane wrote:Well, volcanoes are pretty fuckin' cool. Like I guess lava flows are doomy. Slow and still able to to melt your eardrums.
dubkitty wrote:if i judged art by the lives of the artists i'd have nothing to listen to at all.
No offense, but that's some weapons grade bullshit. Not every musician is either a stark raving lunatic or a complete asshole. Given that most musicians out there who aren't torturing women with burning crack pipes I'd say it's perfectly valid to judge an artist on their personal lives because art and artist are inseparable.
With all due respect dude that's absolutely insipid.
Can't we just pretend Billy died in a bus accident after Zwan?
It was tragic. He was a wonderful musician that made some great music, and he will be missed. And has been missed since 2003. Absolutely nothing has been done by him since 2003. Period. He's dead.
McSpunckle wrote:Can't we just pretend Billy died in a bus accident after Zwan?
It was tragic. He was a wonderful musician that made some great music, and he will be missed. And has been missed since 2003. Absolutely nothing has been done by him since 2003. Period. He's dead.
GardenoftheDead wrote:art and artist are inseparable.
see, i completely disagree with this. i think that if the art and the artist are inseparable, what you've got there is crappy art; good art should be able to stand independent of the artist's personality. to me, if a work of art has any meaning at all, it has meaning because of the relationship between the work and the person who interacts with the work. eventually the artist, and his context, is gone; Rembrandt and Beethoven speak to us because the common humanity of their work reaches out to us across the centuries independent of Rembrandt's bankruptcies and scandals and Beethoven's triumphs and tragedies. and Andy Warhol was the object of a media cult, but his ideas still stand though his image is now largely forgotten. besides, how large of a playlist are you going to come up with of morally correct artistes, and doesn't that smack just a bit of Tipper Gore and Mary Whitehouse?
no, sorry that Warhol bit is utter bullshit. his image IS his art, and is completely intrinsic to it. and it'd be fairly easy making a list of great musicians who weren't terrible people. moreover there are plenty of utterly brilliant artists whose art is inseparable from each other. Kerouac, Bill Evans, Ana Mendieta, Allan Kaprow, Steve Reich, Saul Williams, Emily Dickenson, etc.
you only overlook terrible things people do when you want to be apologist for the good they've done, or believe their good outweighs the bad; a stance that is often heavily biased.
Gearmond wrote:you only overlook terrible things people do when you want to be apologist for the good they've done, or believe their good outweighs the bad; a stance that is often heavily biased.
Blanket generalisation much?
Some people simply enjoy a song, an album or a show, in and of itself, with no knowlege or interest in the failings or bastardry of the artist who created them. That doesn't make those people apologists. It might make them ignorant (depending on your point of view), but certainly not apologists.
Not everyone who likes a band's music (or a painter's pictures, or an actor's films) is going to want to find out about the personal life or opinions of the person behind it. There's nothing wrong with that. Lofty ideas that creator and creation are intrinsically tied sound good, but aren't applicable as a rule to all people who enjoy art.
Gearmond wrote:you only overlook terrible things people do when you want to be apologist for the good they've done, or believe their good outweighs the bad; a stance that is often heavily biased.
well, no: i equally withhold judgement on the WORK of, e.g., Led Zeppelin based on their offstage behavior though i find little good to "apologi(ze) for" and precious little good to outweigh the bad. Zeppelin were VILE human beings. what does that mean to "The Rain Song"? NOTHING.
In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
FIFTY YEARS OF SCARING THE CHILDREN 1970-2020--and i'm not done yet
McSpunckle wrote:Can't we just pretend Billy died in a bus accident after Zwan?
It was tragic. He was a wonderful musician that made some great music, and he will be missed. And has been missed since 2003. Absolutely nothing has been done by him since 2003. Period. He's dead.
I like to think he got shot outside of the studio after they finished Siamese Dream.
