Wagner is a good example though of the problem of separating the man and the music. He wrote both the librettos and the scores of his operas, designing the whole thing as a Gesamtkunstwerk, a "total work of art"--I just swiped that from Wikipedia; I don't know much about Wagner. He was, they say, an operatic revolutionary. For revolutionaries, the work and the man are usually just very deeply intertwined.

Parsifal was the Metropolitan Opera radio broadcast last Saturday. I had a nice long nap during the opera and when I woke up it was still going. There are parts of his operas that everybody likes, and long stretches where you really need to be a fan.

Switching fields, Frank Lloyd Wright is also difficult to separate from his work--the buildings--because he was so deeply committed them. (When he designed furniture for his houses, he wanted the owners to keep the furniture arranged the way he intended, not the way they wanted.)

On the other hand, I get the impression that the architects for Skidmore Owings and Merrill buildings (like the Lever House in New York or the Sears Tower in Chicago) would be quite separate from their works.

Parsifal was the Metropolitan Opera radio broadcast last Saturday. I had a nice long nap during the opera and when I woke up it was still going. There are parts of his operas that everybody likes, and long stretches where you really need to be a fan. — Bitter Crank

Yes, try having them playing every other Sunday over dinner, even the parts everybody likes get a bit 'samey'.

Interesting concept though about art which is so much a part of the artist that it cannot really be separated from them. Quite apart from Wagner's views about Jewishness (which he wrote about quite candidly) his nationalism is so reflected in many of his works it would be hard to take them as works of art alone.

There are probably many better examples, but it seems to be particularly evident with nationalism for some reason.

In the 'real world' #MeToo's targets are being dumped in mass by their support systems. — Cavacava

Which raises moral problems as well. Minnesota Public Radio (MPR) dumped Garrison Keillor in an act of breathtaking ingratitude. Keillor is well fixed, reputationally and financially; we need not worry about his well-being. Garrison contributed his entire working life to MPR, and is a big reasons MPR is a leading player in Public Radio. Worse, in terms of "the optics" they dumped him when they no longer needed him. He had retired from the Prairie Home Show (and they abruptly dropped that name too, replacing it with the tone-deaf "Live From Here" moniker). They also dropped the daily 5 minute Writer's Almanac and rebroadcasts of the Prairie Home show.

Keillor's crimes fall into the category of "moody", occasionally harsh criticism of staff persons, difficult to work with. On a few occasions he made "inappropriate" overtures to female staff members. Pretty mild stuff.

So why did MPR sever the Keillor connection with an axe? High morals? I don't think so. They were scurrying to avoid any financial harm from the #metoo sex panic. The effect of #metoo went off the deep end very quickly. The quite disparate organizations which did the various severings are no more moral than any other corporate entity; they were not protecting morals, they were protecting their bottom lines, and throwing a disposable cape of high ethical standards over their shoulders while they did it.

Bill Cosby's behavior isn't in the same ball park as most of the people targeted and punished by #metoo. Drugging women to have sex with them is clearly much, much worse than what falls into the category of "inappropriate". It's clearly criminal.

Should the art be tainted by the morally questionable actions of the artist? — Dogar

I hope you won't think this is irrelevant. It's a clip from one of my favorite TV shows, Justified. I find it very moving:

Good art is just something we like the sound of or look of, nothing more. It should not make villains, because it does not make heroes either. — Pseudonym

I don't really disagree with those responding on this thread saying the art should be judged independent from the artist, but good art isn't "just something we like the sound or look of..." It's something that moves us, gets into our hearts. It is an uncomfortable thought that I have been strongly affected by someone whose motives are suspect or worse.

It is an uncomfortable thought that I have been strongly affected by someone whose motives are suspect. — T Clark

But isn’t it relatively rare for influential artists, philosophers, etc., to be totally innocent of morally reprehensible behavior? And what of things people have done that no one knows about? I just don’t think it’s realistic to restrict your consumption of art etc. to people who, as far as you’re aware, led upright lives, or lives that agree with your own morals. If everyone you looked up to in art/ philosophy etc was found to be morally degenerate, what would happen to your philosophy? Your aesthetics? What if only one upright person was left? Would they become your god? Whatever they say, whatever they create, is “right” or “good” in your eyes?

I just don’t think it’s realistic to restrict your consumption of art etc. to people who, as far as you’re aware, led upright lives, or lives that agree with your own morals. — Noble Dust

As I indicated, I endorse the "the art speaks for itself" position. That wouldn't stop me from being uncomfortable. For example, "The Cosby Show" is shown on one of the stations I receive. I liked it when it was on originally. When I come across it by chance now, I turn the channel quickly. That's not a philosophical position, it's a personal response.

Yeah, I think the Cosby case is the real case; it's the one that we can all agree on. Was that the case that started the #metoo movement? I can't remember. If so, then it was certainly justified.

But lesser cases, as I think @Bitter Crank has well illustrated, are less clear.

And yes, that it's a personal response is of course, completely acceptable. Even rational, ironically. I don't disagree with you, T Clark.

It's something that moves us, gets into our hearts. — T Clark

That's what "like" means, isn't it?

It is an uncomfortable thought that I have been strongly affected by someone whose motives are suspect or worse. — T Clark

This, I think, is circular. It is possible that it's only an uncomfortable thought because you are committed to the idea that something about that artist directly caused the art. If, on the other hand, you are of the opinion, as I am, that great art is tapping into something inside the mind of the receiver, rather than extracting something from the mind of the artist, then the nature of the person who actually put together those brush strokes, those characters, that dialogue etc becomes irrelevant. The aesthetic of that particular combination was already in my head, anyone could have stumbled across it, it just happened to be that particular artist.

I've not heard it so much with paintings, but lots of great storyteller talk about the story being "out there" already and they just find it. I think all art is like that, the personality of the one who 'finds it' is irrelevant.

then the nature of the person who actually put together those brush strokes, those characters, that dialogue etc becomes irrelevant. — Pseudonym

This is actually what materialism/determinism amounts to but it is the first time I've actually heard someone describe himself/herself as irrelevant. Yes, if someone takes your position, humans, and what they say and do, of all persuasions, become irrelevant in all respects.

That's what "like" means, isn't it? — Pseudonym

Not for me it isn't. There's lots of stuff I like that I'm not especially moved by. I read a lot of science fiction, but I'm moved by "Heart of Darkness."

This, I think, is circular. It is possible that it's only an uncomfortable thought because you are committed to the idea that something about that artist directly caused the art. If, on the other hand, you are of the opinion, as I am, that great art is tapping into something inside the mind of the receiver, rather than extracting something from the mind of the artist, then the nature of the person who actually put together those brush strokes, those characters, that dialogue etc becomes irrelevant. The aesthetic of that particular combination was already in my head, anyone could have stumbled across it, it just happened to be that particular artist. — Pseudonym

First off, as I said, I wasn't making an argument at all. I was expressing a personal preference. I don't have to be consistent or even rational. I am familiar with the idea of art creating itself through the artist. I have felt it myself in when I write, but I recognize that it's a part of me of which I am not conscious. It's just as much me as my conscious self.

First off, as I said, I wasn't making an argument at all. I was expressing a personal preference. — T Clark

I think either you or I have misunderstood the nature of a discussion forum. I wasn't under the impression that this was a space for us to just post "stuff we prefer" and then... well what exactly? What kind of response did you expect to a statement that you don't even think makes rational sense and is just a personal preference?

My favourite colour is green. What do we do with that?

I think either you or I have misunderstood the nature of a discussion forum. I wasn't under the impression that this was a space for us to just post "stuff we prefer" and then... well what exactly? What kind of response did you expect to a statement that you don't even think makes rational sense and is just a personal preference? — Pseudonym

Yes, I do think you have misunderstood the nature of a discussion forum. This one at least. As for what kind of response I expected - I didn't expect any particular reaction, but I got some which were thoughtful and responsive. Others, at least some, do not seem to share your disdain.

Jung would argue that the inability to separate art from the artist itself might be likened to a Freudian view that certain types of art is in itself is a product of the ego and formed as a result of complexes. Intimate personal experiences that may be incompatible with the personality or conscious mind, get translated into cover figures in a bid to make it unrecognizable and is presented as art. A so-called attempt to replace reality by fiction and in so doing bringing into action an arsenal pathological fantasy.

On the other hand a Jung argues that certain artistic products are borne of visionary, primordial experiences that are expressed by the artist, yet completely independent from the human artist himself. These are symbolic expressions that exist in their own right and in bringing forth these visions from the collective unconscious to our consciousness minds in the form of art, these artists fulfill the roles of seers of prophets. Art then serves as compensatory adjustment for the biases and physic ailments of a specific generation and is brought about by the unexpressed desires of the specific epoch. Jung even warned against taking too serious the all too human interpretation that the creator of a work might put forward in relation to the work itself.

"There may be some validity in the idea held by the Freudian school that artists without exception are narcissistic - by which is meant that they are undeveloped persons with infantile and auto-erotic traits. The statement is only valid, however, for the artist as person and has nothing to do with the man as an artist. In his capacity of artist he is neither auto-erotic, nor hetero-erotic, nor erotic in any sense. He is objective and impersonal - even inhuman - for as an artist he is his work, and not a human being." (Jung Modern Man in Search of a Soul 172).

As to whether Weinstein was the latter type of artist is debatable.

Hi and welcome to TPF, nice 1st post.

I think that psychoanalysis can help explain the dynamics of a work of art, but in doing this, it seems to forget the form of the work.

On the other hand a Jung argues that certain artistic products are borne of visionary, primordial experiences that are expressed by the artist, yet completely independent from the human artist himself. These are symbolic expressions that exist in their own right and in bringing forth these visions from the collective unconscious to our consciousness minds in the form of art, these artists fulfill the roles of seers of prophets.

I like this idea because I think works of art are primarily a result of the society where an artist works, not as overtly causal, but as the effects of the unconsciousness grappling with the archetypes, stated and unstated narratives that swirl around in society. The artist thereby is an instrument of culture who has the unique ability to sense what bubbles up from inside his/her self and gives it form in the work of art. The form that is used typically has an accepted foundation (even when that foundation was unaware of itself as in Schoenberg's 12 tone) that exists aside from the artist generally.

"There may be some validity in the idea held by the Freudian school that artists without exception are narcissistic - by which is meant that they are undeveloped persons with infantile and auto-erotic traits. The statement is only valid, however, for the artist as person and has nothing to do with the man as an artist. In his capacity of artist he is neither auto-erotic, nor hetero-erotic, nor erotic in any sense. He is objective and impersonal - even inhuman - for as an artist he is his work, and not a human being." (Jung Modern Man in Search of a Soul 172).

I don't find the ascription of normal or abnormal to an artist particularly helpful in trying to understand their work and I agree with Jung that there is a great difference between the act of creation and what is created.

I don't think of Weinstein as an artist. I think he is more like a shrewd gallery owner that knows how to spot talent and then promote it.