Sunday, May 08, 2005

Ars gratia artis

Should an artist's background influence me?

What I mean is this: when I walk into a museum and look at a work of art, should it matter to me who the artist is when I decide whether or not I like it? When I hear about how a musician or actor is a slimeball, should it taint my appreciation of their work? But I don't mean their morality only; I mean the artist's personal history.

I'll give two examples to illustrate my question.

Scenario 1: an artist is a total dirt bag who cheats on his wife and beats his dog and yet paints the most magnificent paintings. Does the artist's immorality taint the beauty of his works?

Scenario 2: A man is missing both of his arms from a car accident and somehow learns to paint with a brush in his mouth. His paintings are decent -- nothing incredible -- unless you realize the difficulties which face the artist.

Personally, I've never cared to know that much about an artist's background or history. Take my wife's celebrity gossip magazines: celebrities' private lives don't matter much to me. I appreciate their art and that's enough. Why should I care about who they are or what they do on their free time? That's as much out of respect for privacy as anything ... if I were an actor I wouldn't want paparazzi following ME around.

There's a Latin phrase, Ars gratia artis, which means "art for art's sake." It's usually applied to the artist: implying that the artist should be a purist and not use art as a political, social, or religious tool ... or as an avenue to make money. I think the rule should be applied to us, the viewing public, as well. And yet I don't try and remain ignorant about the artists I like. I enjoy hearing tidbits about them, especially the private ones. But it doesn't change what made me like their work in the first place.

I'm not saying that every piece should be considered by itself. I feel that some artists' work makes more sense when you compare it to the rest of their repertoire: it makes you appreciate the fact that the artist is not a one-hit-wonder.

You also often need to view an artist's work in the context of the time period they were working in. I realize there's a methodology to understanding art, and I'm not discounting it. I just have never really cared to know about my actors and authors and artists ... and this is my reason why.

4 comments:

Jared said...

A counterpoint. Though I think we should try and appreciate art for art's sake, I don't think it's wrong to appreciate a family member's artwork more highly ... if nothing more than because it's a family member's.

Marci, if you're reading this, Chrissa and I think your photography is incredible ... and not just because you're my sister.

Jared said...

Phee said...
One thing that nags at me... I've also always felt that the artist themself is more important than the work. The artist's most important work is him/herself: the countless hours they dedicated to improving their talent. And so it's difficult to me, when I say that I appreciate the artist so much, to also apply my "Ars gratia artis rule" and discount any negative things I hear about them.

Also, I have a bit of a double standard: although I try not to let negative news about an artist affect me, I don't feel bad about applying GOOD THINGS to an artist, when I hear them (like when Harrison Ford rescued a lady in his helicopter [plane?] a few years ago).

shasta said...

....so many variables....

i just like and dislike without discrimination....

Jared said...

That's a bit too touchy-feely for me...

I like some things and dislike others...I don't apologize for having taste. You're right about there being lots of variables though.

Brad Pitt doesn't deserve Jennifer Aniston either. So much underserving in this world.