I have been thinking about art and the relationship it has with the artist .
The recent Michael Jackson controversy is a perfect example .
Can we separate the art from the artist or are they so entwined that this is impossible ?
My argument is we can , as long as the art is not exploitative of
a situation that is unpalatable.
But then again this raises more conundrums.
Some of the most striking art is propaganda art.
Acknowledging the expertise of a recruiting poster does not necessarily mean we are pro - war
or indulge in a cultural revolution.
There has been recent discussion in Australia about the relationships that Picasso had with his
many female paramours and that basically because he was a chauvinist pig
his work should be restricted in it's showing.
Where does it end ? Can't read Hemingway because he might cause self harm ?
Wow couldn't listen to any music , read any books , watch T.V , view any art
unless the artist met a certain moral code.
Good Bye Bukowski , Burroughs , Ginsberg , Ozzy , The Rolling Stones , Lemmy
and just about every major visual artist in history.
This weird correctness man .
Everybody knows what is right and wrong.
Michaelangelo's David is not violent pornography.
I don't care if the Sistine Chapel interior decorator shot up heroin
his art is good.I don't care if he was an arsehole to his family.
We are are always limited to the work in question.
In the era of The Kardashians the cult of personality and celebrity
eclipses any art. The life of the artist is only a byline .It may give insight but
it really is only a notice at the bottom of the picture in a gallery.
The artist stands behind the work not in front of it.
Next time '' Billie Jean '' comes on the radio I will tap my toes regardless
of it's sad , sick , creator.
Anyhow time to watch the Rugby League on T.V. and have a beer
plenty of time to read poetry or look at decadent art later .Cheers !!!