Separating the Art from the Artist

Journal Notes 11.24.2024

in the Santa Fe studio a few years back

A question from Annette Wilzig: Have you done an article about separating the art from the artist? I only ask as I often think about how I know some people who can't stand Picasso's art because they've heard he beat up his women. I want to just look objectively at art and let it speak to me and not get an emotional reaction because of something the human artist has done. Can't say though that Hitler's 'art' was any good and neither could the art school he attended. Too bad.......had they liked it perhaps history would have changed drastically!

---

This is an interesting subject that I have thought about on occasion. I think there is a difference between the artist as person, the artist as a conduit for their art, and the art on its own in the world as an artifact. I have talked about this in some previous articles such as A Leaf on a Tree where I say:

My basic thought is that at our depth of being we are all the same being. We are all like a leaf on a great tree. When we explore our intuitive depth we first go down into our stem then into the twig we are a part of, then into to the branch, then into the limb the branch is attached to and eventually into the trunk and roots of the tree. If your intuition can get that far then whatever you do has some effect on all leaves across the whole tree.

So, as an artist, if your intuitive knowingness can get all the way into the depths of the tree trunk, then the tree itself is expressing itself through you and that can have a deep resonance with all of us individual selves who are the leaves on that tree. That is my own poetic way of looking at things. So in practice I am trying, as an artist, to let the tree express itself through me, the little individual, fragile, temporary leaf blowing in the wind and here only for a short season. In the end there is only the tree.

---

While working in the studio, the persona of the artist, the everyday person is who enters the studio but while working, the idea is to get into this other state while working - to connect with the depth. Many artists figure out how to do this and feel disconnected when they can’t achieve this state. The following article also discusses this and links to a couple of other essays that discuss the idea in some depth.

So this brings up the issue of who you are when you are working in the studio compared to who you are when you are just in your everyday state of mind and conducting you daily activities and relationships. There does seem to be a difference.

One difference seems to be who you are in the minds of others and what others’ communal expectations are of you and your response to those expectations. Then there are your expectations of other people you have relationships with and your general expectations and relationship to the world around you.

Then there are the various communal, social, cultural norms, many of which you may have no interest in maintaining since they are not of your own making. Creatives of all sorts in many ways stand apart from the world around them because they are always questioning the seemingly obvious at its very core. That can make for dangerous people that are willing to question what others consider the status quo.

Many creatives will, on the other hand study the status que and adhere to it not out of an assumption of correctness but as a way to maintain a disguise to appear to others as just one among the crowd in order to remain unnoticed so that they might go about their business privately and unimpeded. Or one might choose instead, according to one’s temperament or strategy, to stand out and attract attention as in the practice of a Bohemian lifestyle as an outsider type.

Regardless, like everyone else, artists and creatives is general have all of the egoic peculiarities, hangups, phycological or emotional issues, shortcomings and faults like anyone else. All of these conditions will effect one’s social life as well as one’s artistic practices. Everything any of us do is autobiographical by default. Everything we do is an expression of our own nature.

Still, should an artist choose to do so, one’s artistic practice can be used as a process of self mastery and self discovery as well as self expression. It can be used as a battleground or a testing ground to challenge and expand one’s boundaries, assumptions and beliefs about the world we find ourselves in. Or in the obverse as a road to self destruction and degradation according to the nature of the path you choose to follow.

Each artist’s body of work will resonate with those whose temperament and sensibilities are of a similar nature and not with most others.

The next question is the general reputation a given artist acquires through art market and institutional support that brings more attention and spotlighting to a given artist and then, in turn, the attention brought to that artist within the arts community in general as being an example of an artist whose work should be widely considered and taken seriously. Some seem to deserve this adulation for their artistic genius or innovative nature. It is not unlike the superstars in any field. Some individuals rise to the top from every generation for a variety of reasons at the seeming expense of their creative peers who might in every way be their equals. When questioning why certain individuals rise exponentially above the rest requires a certain degree of skepticism in my opinion. Interests outside of the creative community itself seem to be at the root of this phenomenon.

But this is not to say that the drive of the artist him/herself is not in part responsible for this ascendency. Some artists seem to be driven to figure out where the top of the heap is and then navigate their way to the center of attention like a moth to a flame. This drove many artists to be in Paris when it was considered the center of the world and later to New York when it became the center. Now, in a more decentralized world, it is hard to figure out where that power place is.

In the end is must be in the network itself rather than a particular place coming back to the old axiom; ‘it is not what you know but who you know’.

Coming back to the question of separating the art from the artist, when it comes to this element of becoming a cultural icon, the artist as individual just becomes a mythic character living through the narrative built around the artifacts left behind promoted by those in possession of them. In reality, every artist was just like every other artist going through life the best way they can figure out based on what attracts and repulses them and driven by their own inner persistence. If they are to be judged as an individual they must be judged by the times and circumstances they live in. The further back in history they lived the more romanticized they are. We are only privy to what they left behind and what those who knew them said about them. Hence, keep your nose clean and keep a good record of yourself.

On the other hand there is nothing like shock and controversy for getting attention and publicity.

The fact is, most of us will fade into oblivion and that is perfectly OK too. But it is fun to image that our work will linger on for a few centuries. Who knows, maybe in the future everyone becomes an art collector. Considering how many storage facilities there are, everyone is collecting something or other. This reminds me of the following.

All of us live and act in the present and we have no say in what those in the future decide among themselves is important or interesting or repulsive for that matter. The mind world of humanity is in a constant flux.

Should a viewer separate the appreciation of the art from the person of the artist even if they are a miserable shit and an alleged asshole to those around them or even much worse? Hard to say. Loving a work of art is not the same as condoning bad behavior I wouldn’t think but there is always the axiom “consider the source” and as I pointed out above, everything we do is an expression of our own nature. But there are many facets to the nature of each of us and it is hard to say how many of us could stand up to deep scrutiny and analysis by others when under the spotlight. As the biblical quote goes: “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone.”

---

After publishing this article I came across articles about Picasso related to this conversation.

• ‘Picasso’s twisted beauty – and the ‘trail of female carnage’ he left behind’ on BBC.com

• ‘How Picasso Bled the Women in His Life for Art’ on The Paris Review

• A book review of “Monsters”, a provocative new book by Claire Dederer at The Economist