Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier music?

Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

There are artists who give us first-hand testimony, who can be judged by their words and actions. The interwebs allow us to reach a level of public hysteria, however, not seen before: snap judgements, unjustified inference and mob mentality abound. Celebrity is a deal with the devil: you get attention and (if you're lucky) a bit of cash, but the media gets to publicly vivisect you and create a sensational narrative. It's not at all pretty.

Most of us are constantly shifting anyway; the people we think we know best can often surprise us.
By the way when I wrote "Along with Worm, one of the best posters on this thread." I meant ofcourse, one of the best posters on this SITE.
Oh yes, and I agree with your latest post. Everything changes, nothing is fixed. I think an issue I have in a lot of debates is that people are often trying to prove what they see as 'the truth' or 'reality'. I firmly believe there is no such thing.
My god, how off topic is this!
 
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

By the way when I wrote "Along with Worm, one of the best posters on this thread." I meant ofcourse, one of the best posters on this SITE.
Oh yes, and I agree with your latest post. Everything changes, nothing is fixed. I think an issue I have in a lot of debates is that people are often trying to prove what they see as 'the truth' or 'reality'. I firmly believe there is no such thing.
My god, how off topic is this!

You are too kind.

I don't think it's OT at all: Artists (by one definition) are people who are extraordinarily good at projecting themselves into the world. When we passionately love an artist's work are we dealing with an imagined self on the artist's part? Is this something anyone can ever even know?

This is particularly true of Morrissey because he sings with such utter conviction and authenticity, but the man himself is astonishingly cryptic.
 
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

we're never gonna really know these people.

If you can't find out something deep and essential about an artist through her art, it isn't good art. Simple as that. Genuine artists live their work one way or another, sometimes even when they deliberately attempt to make themselves absent in the work (Flaubert is my favorite example).

The interpretations of a given work of art may vary widely, and one has to be careful not to conflate the artist with the art, but there isn't a single good artist I can think of who doesn't reveal herself in her work in an important way.

If Lady Gaga's music doesn't match her politics, then her music isn't any good, or her politics are superficial, or both.

Are we going to know them the way we know our neighbors? No. But when you say you know your neighbor, do you really know them? You could have conversations with them for years over the hedge and never penetrate their outer defenses. Meanwhile, Morrissey, whom nobody aside from Linder probably knows well, has revealed the essence of who he is to millions. Ask yourself, do you really know your neighbor, or your co-worker, or even some of the members of your own family, better than you know Morrissey?

And as I said above, the whole notion of dividing art from artist is just as wrongheaded as trying to make the art equal the artist. Anaesthesine hasn't watched any of her heroes reveal themselves as a right-wing fascist because she was getting the right political signals even when the music was not overtly political. Left-wingers who like Morrissey are getting the signals they need to listen to him with approval-- but so are right-wingers, which is why Morrissey's politics are often hard to make sense of.

I know Morrissey's politics well enough. I dislike some of his public utterances, and there have been a few dubious songs over the years, but overall I'm comfortable with his politics (overt, implied, and the loose ends suspended between paradoxes).
 
Last edited:
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

If you can't find out something deep and essential about an artist through her art, it isn't good art. Simple as that. Genuine artists live their work one way or another, sometimes even when they deliberately attempt to make themselves absent in the work (Flaubert is my favorite example).

The interpretations of a given work of art may vary widely, and one has to be careful not to conflate the artist with the art, but there isn't a single good artist I can think of who doesn't reveal herself in her work in an important way.
If Lady Gaga's music doesn't match her politics, then her music isn't any good, or her politics are superficial, or both.

Are we going to know them the way we know our neighbors? No. But when you say you know your neighbor, do you really know them? You could have conversations with them for years over the hedge and never penetrate their outer defenses. Meanwhile, Morrissey, whom nobody aside from Linder probably knows well, has revealed the essence of who he is to millions. Ask yourself, do you really know your neighbor, or your co-worker, or even some of the members of your own family, better than you know Morrissey?

And as I said above, the whole notion of dividing art from artist is just as wrongheaded as trying to make the art equal the artist. Anaesthesine hasn't watched any of her heroes reveal themselves as a right-wing fascist because she was getting the right political signals even when the music was not overtly political. Left-wingers who like Morrissey are getting the signals they need to listen to him with approval-- but so are right-wingers, which is why Morrissey's politics are often hard to make sense of.

I know Morrissey's politics well enough. I dislike some of his public utterances, and there have been a few dubious songs over the years, but overall I'm comfortable with his politics (overt, implied, and the loose ends suspended between paradoxes).

Hey Worm, this is scarey but I disagree. Or at least with this bit:

"If you can't find out something deep and essential about an artist through her art, it isn't good art."
What an artist is expressing what they work is not necessarily something apparent. Us humans are preetty complex, reading the symbols and messages is not an exact science and these things can be read in many many ways. I mean I like Bach but I do not believe I know a damn thing about him despite knowing a little of his music.
I think these days we can hear the music and then read about the artist and think 'yup that figures'. As you so cleverly put it:
"Left-wingers who like Morrissey are getting the signals they need to listen to him with approval-- but so are right-wingers, which is why Morrissey's politics are often hard to make sense of.".
By the way. I think Lady Gaga is pretty good. I listened to her first album and I don't think I ever heard someone so adept at coming up with great hooks, track after track after track. She's also quite interesting in the way she has transformed her persona into a piece of art. Warhol would have loved her!
 
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

If you can't find out something deep and essential about an artist through her art, it isn't good art. Simple as that. Genuine artists live their work one way or another, sometimes even when they deliberately attempt to make themselves absent in the work (Flaubert is my favorite example).

Flaubert is a wonderful example: great artists inevitably reveal themselves through their work, for all time. What that says about Shakespeare, though, I'm not quite sure.

If Lady Gaga's music doesn't match her politics, then her music isn't any good, or her politics are superficial, or both.

I suspect it is the first, but there are legions who disagree.

Are we going to know them the way we know our neighbors? No. But when you say you know your neighbor, do you really know them? You could have conversations with them for years over the hedge and never penetrate their outer defenses. Meanwhile, Morrissey, whom nobody aside from Linder probably knows well, has revealed the essence of who he is to millions. Ask yourself, do you really know your neighbor, or your co-worker, or even some of the members of your own family, better than you know Morrissey?

Gutsy observation. Morrissey's gift is that he appears to reveal himself utterly and completely. Not a one of us can know if this is true, however. We cannot know. Nearly every fan has a rather visceral sense of him, but is it at all correct?

I can vouch for his pheromones though - they never lie.

Left-wingers who like Morrissey are getting the signals they need to listen to him with approval-- but so are right-wingers, which is why Morrissey's politics are often hard to make sense of.

Which is also why Morrissey himself is so hard to make sense of, and why he remains such a great artist, even to this day: he manages to speak directly to disparate people without pinning himself down. Remarkable.

Warhol would have loved her!

That is not a ringing endorsement for great art. :)
 
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

What an artist is expressing what they work is not necessarily something apparent. Us humans are preetty complex, reading the symbols and messages is not an exact science and these things can be read in many many ways.

Oh, sure, interpretation is complex, inexact and unscientific. Nor do all artists reveal themselves the same way. But real art is always invested with the creator's spirit. I don't care if we're talking about painting or pop music or wicker baskets. Aside from Flaubert, when I think of personal "impersonal" art I think of Roland Barthes and his great work of autobiography, "Barthes by Barthes". Nobody understood better than Barthes how language (in its widest meaning) is slippery and elusive, and yet he wrote a fantastic autobiography which is nevertheless highly personal and stylized. Or, take Nabokov, who loved misleading critics (especially "Viennese quacks", as he liked to call them-- Freudians) by inserting red herrings into his work that were intended solely to make fun of people who examined an author's every word looking for revealing clues about the artist's real life. His work as a whole is not a window into his private life. It's a window into his art. At the same time, it is genuine, personal, and true to the man Nabokov was said to be by his wife and son, not just clueless academics.

The trick is understanding the ways in which artists reveal themselves. Often it's a riddle, or a symbol, or maybe the truth is hidden in the absences. Very rarely is it obvious. This brings us back to the paradox of Morrissey, which is that he reveals everything and nothing to his audience at the same time. He's an enigma you can solve without understanding why.

I think in most cases, especially with music, the artists do declare themselves in one way or another. They're seldom as interesting as Morrissey, but they do reveal themselves. Of course, to understand how, you probably have to believe, as I do, that everything is political.

I think Lady Gaga is pretty good. I listened to her first album and I don't think I ever heard someone so adept at coming up with great hooks, track after track after track. She's also quite interesting in the way she has transformed her persona into a piece of art. Warhol would have loved her!

Right, see, and in my opinion Warhol and his art were political. Warhol was always the least political person in the room, but that's the point about his art. His work is filled with emptiness, if you will-- and that is highly political, especially in the late 60s and early 70s. Lady Gaga is perhaps Warholian, in the sense that she's openly trading on her phoniness-- her lack of a fixed inner self is what she celebrates-- so what does that say about our times? Something political, for sure.
 
Last edited:
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

To answer the question generally and not specific to Morrissey, no. I think the muse works independent of the person she dwells in. All music should be appreciated apart from the artist who pulled it down from the musicsphere.

Morrissey's position in this matter is...different. :cool:
 
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

Hey Worm, I do agree with you in that everything is political. But I still can't go along with this theory about how art always reveals something about the artist. Ofcourse it does say something but as for interpreting it....... The interpretation will say as much about the perciever as about the artist. For example, your interpretation of Lady Gaga clearly shows you do not like her stuff.
People will interpret certain works in completely different ways.
So, sure, art can be revealing but mostly it's out there to take what we can from it and to project upon it our own fears and wants and whatevers.
Finally, there is no definition of art let alone good art. "What is art?" has no answer, indeed it's the wrong question (the right question is "do you like it?).
 
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

Hey Worm, I do agree with you in that everything is political. But I still can't go along with this theory about how art always reveals something about the artist. Ofcourse it does say something but as for interpreting it....... The interpretation will say as much about the perciever as about the artist. For example, your interpretation of Lady Gaga clearly shows you do not like her stuff.
People will interpret certain works in completely different ways.
So, sure, art can be revealing but mostly it's out there to take what we can from it and to project upon it our own fears and wants and whatevers.
Finally, there is no definition of art let alone good art. "What is art?" has no answer, indeed it's the wrong question (the right question is "do you like it?).

I don't feel strongly one way or the other about Lady Gaga. Yeah, I don't like her. But I don't hate her, and I wouldn't suggest that her music was without merit simply because I didn't like it myself. I can interpret it as politics, though, and that's why I say that the seemingly vast difference between her music and her political views is actually not a mystery at all.

I disagree with you. "What is art?" has an answer. We can debate the answer, we can approach the question in different ways, and often we might even have to allow for multiple answers. But art isn't just any old thing produced by a human being. Art is always self-expression, but self-expression is not always art. If we stretch the definition of "art" until it's meaningless there's no point in using it in the first place. I don't approve of the way the word "art" is used by elitists to exclude and deny various segments of the social body, but that doesn't mean we have to accept that everything around us is art out of a wish to sound egalitarian.
 
Last edited:
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

I don't feel strongly one way or the other about Lady Gaga. Yeah, I don't like her. But I don't hate her, and I wouldn't suggest that her music was without merit simply because I didn't like it myself. I can interpret it as politics, though, and that's why I say that the seemingly vast difference between .

I disagree with you. "What is art?" has an answer. We can debate the answer, we can approach the question in different ways, and often we might even have to allow for multiple answers. But art isn't just any old thing produced by a human being. Art is always self-expression, but self-expression is not always art. If we stretch the definition of "art" until it's meaningless there's no point in using it in the first place. I don't approve of the way the word "art" is used by elitists to exclude and deny various segments of the social body, but that doesn't mean we have to accept that everything around us is art out of a wish to sound egalitarian.
Ofcourse Worm, we are dancing on the head of pin and I don't think our disagreement will lead to bare knuckle fist fight (at least I hope not).
By saying defining art is pointless does not mean that I think anything is art (although anything could be art). By how can it have an anwer? If you could give me any circumstance that would proscribe something for being art I could guarantee it could be gainsaid.
As you say we would have to allow for multiple answers. Damn right we would. It would never end and it would get us nowhere and we would still have no definition.
Out of interest Worm are you from the States or the UK? My impression is the US. (If it is neither please forgive my assumptions).
 
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

To answer the question generally and not specific to Morrissey, no. I think the muse works independent of the person she dwells in. All music should be appreciated apart from the artist who pulled it down from the musicsphere.

Morrissey's position in this matter is...different. :cool:
Hey the most excellent CrystalGeezer, Ideally you're right. All I'm saying is if we acknowledge that we are affected by our knowledge of the world, then surely that information can affect how we appreciate art? How can we help it?
Here's a test:
Cut and paste the address below into your explorer:
When you get to the site you'll see a watercolour.
Try to look at it without reading anything on the page.
Consider your opinion of the picture.

Now see who the artist is.

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgu...&sa=X&ei=FWePTofYCZG20QWJob07&ved=0CCQQ9QEwAg
 
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

Hey the most excellent CrystalGeezer, Ideally you're right. All I'm saying is if we acknowledge that we are affected by our knowledge of the world, then surely that information can affect how we appreciate art? How can we help it?
Here's a test:
Cut and paste the address below into your explorer:
When you get to the site you'll see a watercolour.
Try to look at it without reading anything on the page.
Consider your opinion of the picture.

Now see who the artist is.

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgu...&sa=X&ei=FWePTofYCZG20QWJob07&ved=0CCQQ9QEwAg

I'm sorry, I must be obtuse. What is the point of linking to Hitler's watercolors again?

If the point is to call Hitler an artist, I mean, whatever. Is it "art"? OK. Those watercolors are nothing a semi-talented 10th grader couldn't do. I wouldn't buy one, I wouldn't pass by it in the street and pay any attention to it, and if I saw it hanging in a museum I would assume I was looking at a painting that had been rescued from the dustbin of history because the painter was a mass murderer, a wealthy patron of the arts, or both. Frankly, Hitler's watercolors are the kind of things I'd expect to see hanging on the wall of a cheap motel or an office space for rent in a suburban business park. I think I stared at something like Hitler's watercolor once when I was strapped down in a dentist's chair.

By the way, he was twice rejected by the Academy of Fine Arts, Vienna, so I'm not alone in my judgment. :rolleyes:
 
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

By how can it have an anwer?

It must have an answer or else the word "art" is meaningless. Something is art. Something else is not art. Otherwise the word "art" would have no reason to exist.

The reason we debate the meaning of the word "art" is because, as I said, it has been used as a divisive term intended to exclude broad sections of the population from participating in culture. I get that. I just don't think we need to extend the meaning of "art" to everything under the sun in order to live up to some ideal of democracy. And even if we do expand the definition to include all the oodles of art around us, then it's just a matter of saying which art is good and which is bad. Lady Gaga's music is art, it's just bad art. She's proficient at hooks and beats the way Hitler was proficient at using brushes and paints. She is skilled the way Hitler was skilled, meaning it's clear she didn't roll out of bed and into a studio. She studied, she learned her craft, and she achieved a basic level of proficiency. So did he, as a young man. She sucks, just like Hitler sucked. Lady Gaga's songs are destined to find immortality looping endlessly in supermarkets and discount furniture stores. Hitler's work was the sort of thing you see on the door of a refrigerator or on an easel in a retirement home, not a museum. It's probably hanging on the wall of the Bluths' model home in "Arrested Development". I'll have to break out my DVDs and re-watch the series to find out.

I mean, in actuality, we're talking apples and oranges. We're talking about defining what art is or is not, on the one hand, and whether a given work is good art or bad art, on the other. It's true that art I consider "bad" might be well-loved by someone else. That's fine. That's opinion. I don't dispute that.

I'm American.
 
Last edited:
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

Absolutely not. An artists' politics is their own business, and it does nothing whatsoever to diminish the quality of their work. If, for instance, Michael Jackson was found to be guilty beyond any reasonable doubt of child molestation, it wouldn't change my appreciation of his music at all, though it would certainly change my appreciation of the man. And that's regarding a child molester. Having nationalist political leanings isn't morally reprehensible, nor is it a crime.

Michael Jackson was acquitted twice for allegations of child molestation. He is not Gary Glitter, who you should be mentioning instead of Jackson, because Gary Glitter was already associated with a faded, albeit still loved by some, music genre. His 'legacy' was destroyed by his conviction of child molestation and his massive collection of child pornography, some featuring physically abused children, farther tarnished his memory. Can something that despicable be forgiven if it's just about the music? Also Michael Jackson wasn't a politically charged artist, even if he made some attempt of being more outspoken towards the corruption in the music industry later in his career. I realize that you meant the illustration to be merely hypothetical, though it still bothers me that some people associate Michael Jackson with pedophilia.
 
Last edited:
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

I'm sorry, I must be obtuse. What is the point of linking to Hitler's watercolors again?

If the point is to call Hitler an artist, I mean, whatever. Is it "art"? OK. Those watercolors are nothing a semi-talented 10th grader couldn't do. I wouldn't buy one, I wouldn't pass by it in the street and pay any attention to it, and if I saw it hanging in a museum I would assume I was looking at a painting that had been rescued from the dustbin of history because the painter was a mass murderer, a wealthy patron of the arts, or both. Frankly, Hitler's watercolors are the kind of things I'd expect to see hanging on the wall of a cheap motel or an office space for rent in a suburban business park. I think I stared at something like Hitler's watercolor once when I was strapped down in a dentist's chair.

By the way, he was twice rejected by the Academy of Fine Arts, Vienna, so I'm not alone in my judgment. :rolleyes:
Sorry Worm, I was repsonding to CrystalGeezer. I was simply making the point that what you know can change what you like.
It was not related to your previous post.
 
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

It must have an answer or else the word "art" is meaningless. Something is art. Something else is not art. Otherwise the word "art" would have no reason to exist.

The reason we debate the meaning of the word "art" is because, as I said, it has been used as a divisive term intended to exclude broad sections of the population from participating in culture. I get that. I just don't think we need to extend the meaning of "art" to everything under the sun in order to live up to some ideal of democracy. And even if we do expand the definition to include all the oodles of art around us, then it's just a matter of saying which art is good and which is bad. Lady Gaga's music is art, it's just bad art. She's proficient at hooks and beats the way Hitler was proficient at using brushes and paints. She is skilled the way Hitler was skilled, meaning it's clear she didn't roll out of bed and into a studio. She studied, she learned her craft, and she achieved a basic level of proficiency. So did he, as a young man. She sucks, just like Hitler sucked. Lady Gaga's songs are destined to find immortality looping endlessly in supermarkets and discount furniture stores. Hitler's work was the sort of thing you see on the door of a refrigerator or on an easel in a retirement home, not a museum. It's probably hanging on the wall of the Bluths' model home in "Arrested Development". I'll have to break out my DVDs and re-watch the series to find out.

I mean, in actuality, we're talking apples and oranges. We're talking about defining what art is or is not, on the one hand, and whether a given work is good art or bad art, on the other. It's true that art I consider "bad" might be well-loved by someone else. That's fine. That's opinion. I don't dispute that.

I'm American.
OK Worm, take a stab a what art is and what isn't. I know this is just a forum and it's quite difficult, but you see you go on about meaning but you give no clue whatsoever to what it is. So go on, help me understand.
 
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

I don’t find Morrissey to be at all nationalistic. Personally and politically, he occupies his own entirely unique space. The politics of Morrissey and the personality of Morrissey are one and the same, just as the art and the man are one and the same. He is neither left, nor right. He is Morrissey. He is apart. He is different. This is not to elevate him (he has many flaws, and I don’t consider myself an apologist), but any attempt at analysis invariably ends in a muddle. An overtly logical approach simply doesn’t work with Morrissey. Saying you can’t help feeling the Chinese are a subspecies is, quite possibly (as a statement), racist. Therefore Morrissey must be racist. Except, of course, we know he isn’t. So where does that leave us?

Morrissey approaches everything as an artist – this is why he can empathise with the frustration of the far right (National Front Disco) without accepting the politics (“racism is beyond common sense”) – and not just an artist, but a working-class artist. Morrissey is working class to the core. This ultimately places him in a political maelstrom where every political party lets you down and life is a constant process of erosion and coercion (you will become middle class, you will aspire, surely you can’t for one moment believe you are actually the finished article you grubby, inarticulate individual?). This is an existence which breeds compassion, community spirit and anger in equal measure. It’s a recipe for disaster... and great art.

As for what Morrissey would have to do/say in order for me to cease listening to his songs, I really don’t believe he would ever do or say anything that would have that effect. He hasn’t said or done anything in 50+ years which I recognise as the seed of some future debacle. Maybe I’m missing something. And there really is no point sinking to hypothetical melodrama like, What if he ate a baby seal live on national television whilst expressing more than a passing interest in the musical output of Phil Collins?

Thanks for the thread, by the way, Peter. It’s a lot more interesting than speculation about whether Morrissey would/should become an X-Factor judge.:)

Nicely articulated. I agree with your assertion in the second paragraph, Morrissey is working class at heart, but he is estranged from that community also. He observes the social conventions and even harshness of the working class in his own environment with amusement, sorrow, and at last great sensitivity and he translates these observances astutely. In my opinion, Morrissey and his music ultimately transcends the political.
 
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

Hey the most excellent CrystalGeezer, Ideally you're right. All I'm saying is if we acknowledge that we are affected by our knowledge of the world, then surely that information can affect how we appreciate art? How can we help it?
Here's a test:
Cut and paste the address below into your explorer:
When you get to the site you'll see a watercolour.
Try to look at it without reading anything on the page.
Consider your opinion of the picture.

Now see who the artist is.

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgu...&sa=X&ei=FWePTofYCZG20QWJob07&ved=0CCQQ9QEwAg

Michael Jackson was acquitted twice for allegations of child molestation. He is not Gary Glitter, who you should be mentioning instead of Jackson, because Gary Glitter was already associated with a faded, albeit still loved by some, music genre. His 'legacy' was destroyed by his conviction of child molestation and his massive collection of child pornography, some featuring physically abused children, farther tarnished his memory. Can something that despicable be forgiven if it's just about the music? Also Michael Jackson wasn't a politically charged artist, even if he made some attempt of being more outspoken towards the corruption in the music industry later in his career. I realize that you meant the illustration to be merely hypothetical, though it still bothers me that some people associate Michael Jackson with pedophilia.

Hitler tests and despicable people aside, my point was that the muse dwells in our souls, does her work to enlighten our age, then moves on. She isn't within us always, ask any musician with writer's block. Morrissey NAILS IT with this song:



I contend he's apologizing to the muse when he mentions about our blood and bones getting in her way, our lives outside of being a musician or artist, the things that make us unsavory. To take this thought a bit further and touching on why I think Morrissey is different, I believe she calls him home, she dwells in him, haunts him, is him often. That's why he gets so upset at the music today because the human in him is a bit of a perfectionist and wants to have his hands in his own work, when she goes off and dips into other musicians and he sees how the are portraying her truth, he gets agitated. That's a whole nuther thread though. :p But I still maintain the answer is NO. Listen to the music separate from the vessel who was contracted to do her work.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

Hitler tests and despicable people aside, my point was that the muse dwells in our souls, does her work to enlighten our age, then moves on. She isn't within us always, ask any musician with writer's block. Morrissey NAILS IT with this song:



I contend he's apologizing to the muse when he mentions about our blood and bones getting in her way, our lives outside of being a musician or artist, the things that make us unsavory. To take this thought a bit further and touching on why I think Morrissey is different, I believe she calls him home, she dwells in him, haunts him, is him often. That's why he gets so upset at the music today because the human in him is a bit of a perfectionist and wants to have his hands in his own work, when she goes off and dips into other musicians and he sees how the are portraying her truth, he gets agitated. That's a whole nuther thread though. :p But I still maintain the answer is NO. Listen to the music separate from the vessel who was contracted to do her work.

Thanks for a great response CrystalGeezer. I guess if you say that your appreciation of art is completely unaffected by any other knowledge then you're right. All I can say is that for me when appreciating art, it is not just the qualities of the work I am digesting but also my knowledge of the artist (and everything else) and this will have an effect. Ideally we should be able to separate art but we don't live in vacuum. It's all about context.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

Oh, sure, interpretation is complex, inexact and unscientific. Nor do all artists reveal themselves the same way. But real art is always invested with the creator's spirit. I don't care if we're talking about painting or pop music or wicker baskets. Aside from Flaubert, when I think of personal "impersonal" art I think of Roland Barthes and his great work of autobiography, "Barthes by Barthes". Nobody understood better than Barthes how language (in its widest meaning) is slippery and elusive, and yet he wrote a fantastic autobiography which is nevertheless highly personal and stylized. Or, take Nabokov, who loved misleading critics (especially "Viennese quacks", as he liked to call them-- Freudians) by inserting red herrings into his work that were intended solely to make fun of people who examined an author's every word looking for revealing clues about the artist's real life. His work as a whole is not a window into his private life. It's a window into his art. At the same time, it is genuine, personal, and true to the man Nabokov was said to be by his wife and son, not just clueless academics.

The trick is understanding the ways in which artists reveal themselves. Often it's a riddle, or a symbol, or maybe the truth is hidden in the absences. Very rarely is it obvious. This brings us back to the paradox of Morrissey, which is that he reveals everything and nothing to his audience at the same time. He's an enigma you can solve without understanding why.

So beautifully put. Only a great, subtle, complex artist can achieve that level of sophistication. If something is complex enough to require revisiting, if a book or a painting draws me back again and again and slowly unfolds with meaning, then that is a mind of great complexity speaking through a given medium. Everything else is decoration or entertainment.

All I can say is that for me when appreciating art, it is not just the qualities of the work I am digesting but also my knowledge of the artist (and everything else) and this will have an effect. Ideally we should be able to separate art but we don't live in vacuum. It's all about context.

Really?

When you go to a museum and you see a great canvas, or a magnificent bronze, or when you find a song by someone you've never heard before, are you not able to judge whether or not it moves you? Unless I'm living hopelessly in the past, I usually come to art with no preconceived notions and little (if any) knowledge of the artist; the art says all it has to say about the mind that produced it. Even if I fall in love with an artist's work, I seldom look into their autobiography. This applies even to artists I have known and loved for years: a long time passed before I looked into the "facts" of Louise Bourgeois' life, but her art changed me, and that is all that matters. When an artist creates something great, they are revealing a part of themselves that, ideally, cannot be easily articulated. It is a different part of the brain that engages in the creative process, and in the consumption of it, too.

Occasionally the autobiography of an artist matters: case-in-point, Mark Rothko. Far more often than not the appreciation of art exists on another level, where facts don't matter, where inspiration is all.

Which all leads to the fact that Morrissey conveys everything he needs to convey through his art. The man said so himself: it's all in the songs.
 
Back
Top Bottom