Thank you Cecil for addressing this topic. I've often wondered why some people have said that all of us are hypocrites in some way and I guess that's true about how I am about not liking the artist but loving the art as I pick and choose in that depending on a) how much the art moves me at first appearance and b) how 'bad' I view what the artist has done or is. It's a lot like how I choose to boycott stores depending on how severe I see the politics are of the owners. But I am not vigilant on much research regarding all that as there are just too many rabbit holes and time wasted trying to figure out how 'good' or 'bad' they are according to my tastes. So, in that respect, yeah, I'm a hypocrite. I do try to view art objectively in leaving out what I know about the artist and leave it at that. So I guess in a roundabout way I'm saying that I judge it all on an individual level and go with my emotions that a piece of art or music or even a store will evoke in me. Could be just a mood thing too. Long ago I had a boyfriend, a stockbroker who only dealt in "Socially Responsible Investments".........he didn't last long in that career. There are skeletons in everyone's closet.
Thinking more about this, it is also possible to like the artist but not the art. I am sure there are many admirable artists in their everyday lives but just can't find what it takes to make great art. Maybe they are too safe or too convectional or too timid to make something that inspires. And while we are in a Me Too time, let's not forget that there are many stories of women artists who were cruel or negligent to their children. I know from experience as a foster parent that women can be assholes too.
True true and true! I had a man live with me several yrs ago who did really stupid "art" but of course I couldn't tell him that. I had to be quite diplomatic with him when he asked me what I thought and although I was as honest as possible with his (arts and crafts really), I tried to give him feedback with open ended questions and suggestions that didn't insult him. He turned out to be an asshole anyway, so his character matched his shitty "art". There were 2 women artists that our gallery showed and I know they slept with my (ex)husband then, but I really did love their art. So, go figure. I'll just often let the art speak for itself and my reaction to it on both an emotional level and objective one.
Yes the art and the artist are separate relationships when it comes down to it and that may have nothing to do with each other as far as the viewer goes. The art is a unique, independent entity made usually, from a different aspect of the individual artist who made it. I think liking or admiring a work of art regardless of who made it in no way reflects on the viewer in terms of their relationship to the artist. If the viewer doesn't know the artist personally, there is no relationship even if you have heard other people's comments on their relationship with that artist. Everybody talks with praise or distain about others none of us have ever met just based on hearsay. That is the way gossip is and the world is full of gossip. It is an interesting human trait. I think I'll shape this up into another article...
Yes, well stated. Funny though, there are films I won't see because I don't like an actor in it but that's because I have to sit there for a couple of hours and have to see that person. Art is different to me though. You're right in that the art is a separate entity all by itself and tells its own story. I don't have to see the artist I don't like in it at all to find the art great.
Right. But even with actors, it is the character we are watching not the actor playing the character. But that is a harder separation to make for sure. Sometimes because of the character played I don’t like the actor for a while. Ok I have written a pretty good article based on my comments. It will post dec. 20.
Your comment, "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." made me think of the Rothko exhibit I saw in Paris last year. I was struck throughout the chronological show at the magnitude of Rothko's ego. Almost from the beginning, his accompanying commentary was quite explicit about his drive to break the mold, to take art to another realm, which he is generally seen as having succeeded in doing. It seemed to me, as I watched his art progressively push boundaries towards overwhelming the viewer, that his need to be out front remained the driving force—not that his talent didn't get him where he wanted to go—and was reflected in the demands he made on museums and other buyers. In the end, his star seemed to be dimming as art took a turn in a new direction. There are several theories on why he killed himself. I have my own idea.
Thanks for writing Elizabeth. That sounds like it was an interesting show! Was that the show at The Fondation Louis Vuitton? On the website they have a quote from Rothko:
“I became a painter because I wanted to raise painting to the level of poignancy of music and poetry.”
That sounds like something I might say leaving out poignancy and replacing it with a less tragic term but there was a lot of tragedy going around in the 20th century. I guess there always is. I have peered into the well of tears. It is not a place to linger.
I might say: "I want to paint what I cannot see like poetry and music - blend them together to express the great harmony that drives them and is the root of them all."
What IS your idea of why he killed himself? As a youngster in college I had a passing interest in Rothko's paintings but I didn't ever study up on him. Back at that time, in the 1970's is was hard to study up on anybody like we can do today. I guess I figured if he killed himself that was probably not a good path to go down. Certainly, in his time, it was still the early days of abstraction so there was plenty of pioneering to do. I assumed he must have suffered from depression.
Thank you Cecil for addressing this topic. I've often wondered why some people have said that all of us are hypocrites in some way and I guess that's true about how I am about not liking the artist but loving the art as I pick and choose in that depending on a) how much the art moves me at first appearance and b) how 'bad' I view what the artist has done or is. It's a lot like how I choose to boycott stores depending on how severe I see the politics are of the owners. But I am not vigilant on much research regarding all that as there are just too many rabbit holes and time wasted trying to figure out how 'good' or 'bad' they are according to my tastes. So, in that respect, yeah, I'm a hypocrite. I do try to view art objectively in leaving out what I know about the artist and leave it at that. So I guess in a roundabout way I'm saying that I judge it all on an individual level and go with my emotions that a piece of art or music or even a store will evoke in me. Could be just a mood thing too. Long ago I had a boyfriend, a stockbroker who only dealt in "Socially Responsible Investments".........he didn't last long in that career. There are skeletons in everyone's closet.
Thinking more about this, it is also possible to like the artist but not the art. I am sure there are many admirable artists in their everyday lives but just can't find what it takes to make great art. Maybe they are too safe or too convectional or too timid to make something that inspires. And while we are in a Me Too time, let's not forget that there are many stories of women artists who were cruel or negligent to their children. I know from experience as a foster parent that women can be assholes too.
True true and true! I had a man live with me several yrs ago who did really stupid "art" but of course I couldn't tell him that. I had to be quite diplomatic with him when he asked me what I thought and although I was as honest as possible with his (arts and crafts really), I tried to give him feedback with open ended questions and suggestions that didn't insult him. He turned out to be an asshole anyway, so his character matched his shitty "art". There were 2 women artists that our gallery showed and I know they slept with my (ex)husband then, but I really did love their art. So, go figure. I'll just often let the art speak for itself and my reaction to it on both an emotional level and objective one.
Yes the art and the artist are separate relationships when it comes down to it and that may have nothing to do with each other as far as the viewer goes. The art is a unique, independent entity made usually, from a different aspect of the individual artist who made it. I think liking or admiring a work of art regardless of who made it in no way reflects on the viewer in terms of their relationship to the artist. If the viewer doesn't know the artist personally, there is no relationship even if you have heard other people's comments on their relationship with that artist. Everybody talks with praise or distain about others none of us have ever met just based on hearsay. That is the way gossip is and the world is full of gossip. It is an interesting human trait. I think I'll shape this up into another article...
Yes, well stated. Funny though, there are films I won't see because I don't like an actor in it but that's because I have to sit there for a couple of hours and have to see that person. Art is different to me though. You're right in that the art is a separate entity all by itself and tells its own story. I don't have to see the artist I don't like in it at all to find the art great.
Right. But even with actors, it is the character we are watching not the actor playing the character. But that is a harder separation to make for sure. Sometimes because of the character played I don’t like the actor for a while. Ok I have written a pretty good article based on my comments. It will post dec. 20.
Your comment, "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." made me think of the Rothko exhibit I saw in Paris last year. I was struck throughout the chronological show at the magnitude of Rothko's ego. Almost from the beginning, his accompanying commentary was quite explicit about his drive to break the mold, to take art to another realm, which he is generally seen as having succeeded in doing. It seemed to me, as I watched his art progressively push boundaries towards overwhelming the viewer, that his need to be out front remained the driving force—not that his talent didn't get him where he wanted to go—and was reflected in the demands he made on museums and other buyers. In the end, his star seemed to be dimming as art took a turn in a new direction. There are several theories on why he killed himself. I have my own idea.
Thanks for writing Elizabeth. That sounds like it was an interesting show! Was that the show at The Fondation Louis Vuitton? On the website they have a quote from Rothko:
“I became a painter because I wanted to raise painting to the level of poignancy of music and poetry.”
That sounds like something I might say leaving out poignancy and replacing it with a less tragic term but there was a lot of tragedy going around in the 20th century. I guess there always is. I have peered into the well of tears. It is not a place to linger.
I might say: "I want to paint what I cannot see like poetry and music - blend them together to express the great harmony that drives them and is the root of them all."
What IS your idea of why he killed himself? As a youngster in college I had a passing interest in Rothko's paintings but I didn't ever study up on him. Back at that time, in the 1970's is was hard to study up on anybody like we can do today. I guess I figured if he killed himself that was probably not a good path to go down. Certainly, in his time, it was still the early days of abstraction so there was plenty of pioneering to do. I assumed he must have suffered from depression.