Separating the artist from the art . . . What do you think?

Always an interesting question for several reasons, one is that it demonstrates how pervasive the port-modern mindset is. For the most part, the idea of separating the art from the artist lies in the realm of literary criticism. A primary reason is to give literature an objective base on which to be compared. Quite frankly, Hemingway is a more interesting man than Fitzgerald, and that affects how we dissect their work, but when you remove the author from the equation all you have is two books, or one book, that needs to stand on it's own without the support of a fascinating person behind it. The practice has it's values, but to suggest that it's the only, or best, or most beneficial way to examine art is absurd. Among many problems that I have with that excerpt (IE, it could be said and supported that Pound hated his readers, I think that factors into how we need to read him, don't you?) The last line, "Anyway, the meaning of art is based solely on the observer and not on the artwork or the artist, only on what the work invokes in the observer." No, simply put, that's the most panzy minded artistic stance one can take. Art, literature especially, is a form of communication where both parties input, the artist and observer. To alleviate the artist's responsibility in this is immature and ignorant. The artist has a responsibility to his reader (assuming this art is for a somewhat didactic purpose and not solely for entertainment or art's sake) to, at least, provide consistent imagery. I'm on a little tangent right now, but it's interesting to note that Nabokov among several other modernist writers used this argument as a means to alleviate themselves of the burden of having written socially unacceptable material. Cowardly? In one sense, yes, but in another the world has changed quite a lot. Anyway, in the real world you can't and shouldn't try to separate the art from the artist. If you read Vonnegut and ignore the fact that he was a POW you are going to miss a large portion of the significance of Slaughterhouse Five. The art and artist have everything to do with one another, a talented artist will learn or try to create a barrier through which he filters himself instead of just flooding the page with it, but there is still direct correlation. Yes, my opinion of the artist affects my opinion of the art, as it should. Vonnegut said, "The writer is the invisible character in his work." His example: Why are Hemingway's books so good, but all the movies so terrible - because Hemingway isn't in the movie. Our image of the man affects our interpretation of the story. And so it should. If I think a writer is an idiot, there is no chance I'll ever think a piece of theirs is brilliant. And on that issue, I can tell you that I'm right. No, it's not a conscious choice. We judge each other and each other's societal contributions by nature. Nothing will change that and nothing should, it's advanced us this far. The trick is to let those judgements stand on something that matter like morality, intelligence, or general courtesy as opposed to skin color, religion, or political views. However, it sometimes is a conscious choice. For instance, I won't read Stephanie Meyer ever because I view her as an idiot. Not because of the quality of her writing (which I could I suppose) but because she fails to see past her own marketing. That's a conscious choice, I had to decide that. So, lets say it's situational on the conscious thing. Either the artist accepts responsibility or he doesn't. Never trust an artist who tells you to separate him from his work, either it's not his work or he's got something disturbing to hide. P.S. I agree with TSR's last paragraph.

No. The art is a creation of the artist. It is wholly a part of the artist without being the whole artist (a person is more than just an artist). The art cannot be separated from the artist, although there is a whole school (I mean the rarefied advocates of Deconstructionism) of thought that teaches that the artist is irrelevant. i live in the real world. The art would not even exist without the artist having first conceived it, developed it , given it form and produced it. Saying there is no such thing as an original discourse or imagery or barline or whatever is specious in the extreme...so what? it is in the artist's manipulation of so-called "public" entities that originality is expressed. Every work of art, literature and music is a product of its specific time and place. It cannot be reduced to some kind of ahistorical (unhistorical) empty frame. And, IMHO, a work of art is much better appreciated if one is familar with the historical and biographical background that gave birth to it. Much of the popularity of structuralism and deconstruction is due to the laziness of so-called scholars who don't want to make the effort to study the historical and biographical context.

Separating the artist from art just sounds spiteful, perhaps even rude. It seems impossible, in fact. Such separation is merely abstract at best. I would even venture so far as to say that the more such separation is achieved, the more abstract it becomes.