well said
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 28 November 2017 23:54 (six years ago) link
exile all morally suspect artists to siberia and make them suffer so we can enjoy their art knowing that they are not benefiting
― Mordy, Tuesday, 28 November 2017 23:59 (six years ago) link
When the art no longer belongs to the originator, then you are the artist. If you can mine valuable things from shit, that was you doing the work, and the value of it should be ascribed to you, not the originator.I don't think a creator's behavior or beliefs are inextricable from their work, but the more that is the case, the more that work is craft rather than art, and so then a different set of value judgments come in.
― Philip Nunez, Wednesday, 29 November 2017 00:01 (six years ago) link
wait wait wait how is Greenberg accidental? I feel like Baumbach is pretty obviously making him intolerable
― Universal LULU Nation (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 29 November 2017 00:03 (six years ago) link
― Mordy, Tuesday, November 28, 2017 3:59 PM (ten minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
I actually like this solution
― .oO (silby), Wednesday, 29 November 2017 00:11 (six years ago) link
There's at least a 75% chance someone in this thread is actually Tao Lin I figure
Good posts
I don't think a creator's behavior or beliefs are inextricable from their work
But does it matter if they are or aren't the answer fyi is no
― moyesery loves kompany (darraghmac), Wednesday, 29 November 2017 00:13 (six years ago) link
An object is an object once complete it is not the history of its creation save for that remnant of the history that shows in the object NB this remnant is a lot less than you think ps scrub author names and by christ flamethrower off author biographies from novels and continue in this vein through all artefacts that you would have known as creative endeavour else admit ur fandom and just buy a tshirt
― moyesery loves kompany (darraghmac), Wednesday, 29 November 2017 00:16 (six years ago) link
yes that's a threat
― moyesery loves kompany (darraghmac), Wednesday, 29 November 2017 00:17 (six years ago) link
of course extricability of intent matters: we've all enjoyed food well-prepared by racists precisely because try as they might, they're unable to imbue BBQ chicken with hatred.
― Philip Nunez, Wednesday, 29 November 2017 00:19 (six years ago) link
I don't think you've argued a clear point there.
Extrudability of intent is starting outside-in. You're the experiencer. It's you put the creator's intent in there if you find it there.
― moyesery loves kompany (darraghmac), Wednesday, 29 November 2017 00:21 (six years ago) link
Autocorrect otoh lends a very sinister aspect to the whole thing
ie the racism you taste in that chicken didn't come from anything in the sauce
― moyesery loves kompany (darraghmac), Wednesday, 29 November 2017 00:22 (six years ago) link
If I can taste racism in a chicken, then I would agree it's my taste buds that are the problem.
― Philip Nunez, Wednesday, 29 November 2017 00:24 (six years ago) link
Or, rather, it's true that art isn't made in a vacuum but it sure as fuck has to travel through one to reach anyone else
― moyesery loves kompany (darraghmac), Wednesday, 29 November 2017 00:24 (six years ago) link
XP twas yr analogy bucko
― moyesery loves kompany (darraghmac), Wednesday, 29 November 2017 00:25 (six years ago) link
the more that work is craft rather than art,
I don't understand the distinction. art is in the eye of the beholder. darragh otm, once a work is complete it belongs to the world, i think you're giving the artist more power than they deserve or have. the world misinterprets artists' intentions all the time, it doesn't make their view any less valid, if anything it diminishes the singular artist's intent
― flappy bird, Wednesday, 29 November 2017 00:29 (six years ago) link
why use an abstract example when chik fil a is standing right there
― Listen to my homeboy Fantano (D-40), Wednesday, 29 November 2017 00:31 (six years ago) link
Does it stand without a social construct tho
Does it
― moyesery loves kompany (darraghmac), Wednesday, 29 November 2017 00:32 (six years ago) link
with craft you can judge on more technical aspects -- is this chicken juicy, is it properly salted, etc...with art, the chicken doesn't even have to be edible.
― Philip Nunez, Wednesday, 29 November 2017 00:33 (six years ago) link
If it isn't then it's bad chicken.
I think perhaps the chicken concept has outlived its usefulness here
― moyesery loves kompany (darraghmac), Wednesday, 29 November 2017 00:33 (six years ago) link
“Craft” is what people call art made by women or people of color
― .oO (silby), Wednesday, 29 November 2017 00:35 (six years ago) link
are you saying... this goose is cooked?
― Philip Nunez, Wednesday, 29 November 2017 00:36 (six years ago) link
XP that's kinda just a bit nonsensical there silby tbh
― moyesery loves kompany (darraghmac), Wednesday, 29 November 2017 00:45 (six years ago) link
Art being in the eye of the beholder is all very well and true but part and parcel of the art is its context. Watching Woody Allen's Manhattan in 1979 is not the same experience as watching it now, because of what we now know about Allen. I suspect when it comes to artists who are bad people we can ignore it a lot more easily when the person is long dead and not impinging on our cultural space in such a direct way. I can enjoy Knut Hamsun's Hunger without worrying unduly about the fact that he was a Nazi in a way that I simply couldn't with a book written by a contemporary Nazi sympathiser.
I liked Taipei, if Lin's a sexual abuser then that makes me feel a lot more dubious about him, but maybe not to the extent of never reading him again.
― Zelda Zonk, Wednesday, 29 November 2017 00:47 (six years ago) link
well, cooking has long been the province of women and people of color, and it's true that pretensions of art in cooking have been given more credence when executed by white men.
― Philip Nunez, Wednesday, 29 November 2017 00:50 (six years ago) link
Xp Not to reduce your post to two letters but 'we'
When people start writing down what 'we' are getting from a creative enterprise then the stall is already set out
― moyesery loves kompany (darraghmac), Wednesday, 29 November 2017 00:51 (six years ago) link
'we' is the worst word in writing today tbh
Well I could easily rephrase the same thought without 'we', so I think my point stands. When we/you/a person beholds art, s/he includes everything s/he knows about it including the stuff about the person who made it and the circumstances of it being made
― Zelda Zonk, Wednesday, 29 November 2017 00:55 (six years ago) link
better great art by a terrible person than terrible art by a wonderful person
― Mordy, Wednesday, 29 November 2017 00:57 (six years ago) link
I've always been on the lookout for undeniably great art by terrible people, and it's always been totally deniable.
― Philip Nunez, Wednesday, 29 November 2017 01:01 (six years ago) link
caravaggio was pretty terrible
― Mordy, Wednesday, 29 November 2017 01:03 (six years ago) link
ZZ I think that when you change from we to I (imo the third person is just 'we' again and ought be jettisoned) it changes the statement completely
― moyesery loves kompany (darraghmac), Wednesday, 29 November 2017 01:10 (six years ago) link
The experience you claim for yourself is inarguable and any experience you claim for anyone else is invalid and that's the core of the argument from where im standing, art is experienced in the first person and therefore nothing is true
― moyesery loves kompany (darraghmac), Wednesday, 29 November 2017 01:14 (six years ago) link
i think we (non-royal we) allow for a much more personalized experience of art than we do say murder, but maybe art crimes should be prosecuted closer to other kinds of crimes (i.e. by community standards).
― Philip Nunez, Wednesday, 29 November 2017 01:18 (six years ago) link
What is an art crime
― moyesery loves kompany (darraghmac), Wednesday, 29 November 2017 01:20 (six years ago) link
xpost
Yes, art is a subjective experience and there's no right/wrong way to experience it, I agree. I was making an empirical point about the way people seem to experience art. And generally they find it impossible to divorce the object from its surrounds. You can say that once an artist's done with his/her art, it's out there in the world, separate from the artist, but in practice, those beholders of art tend to want to know about the artist etc.
― Zelda Zonk, Wednesday, 29 November 2017 01:21 (six years ago) link
Ah ah ah
People, they, beholders
― moyesery loves kompany (darraghmac), Wednesday, 29 November 2017 01:22 (six years ago) link
Am I not allowed to talk about anyone but myself?
― Zelda Zonk, Wednesday, 29 November 2017 01:24 (six years ago) link
if even that tbh
― Mordy, Wednesday, 29 November 2017 01:25 (six years ago) link
Course you are!
But for the purposes of this discussion it completely begs the question, surely?
― moyesery loves kompany (darraghmac), Wednesday, 29 November 2017 01:30 (six years ago) link
i thought the general anxiety around reading tao lin is whether it's communally offensive (an art crime)? *BANGS GAVEL* Law and Order theme begins.
― Philip Nunez, Wednesday, 29 November 2017 01:35 (six years ago) link
I guess my starting point was this from you: "An object is an object once complete it is not the history of its creation". That strikes me as a bit naive. There's no "object" out there per se. There's an experience had by the person who encounters an artist's intervention. That is an entirely subjective experience that may well include "the history of its creation". And, it seems, it very often does. Read any review of any book, or indeed this thread, and you'll see ample inclusion of "the history of its creation" in any experience of "the object".
― Zelda Zonk, Wednesday, 29 November 2017 01:39 (six years ago) link
With you 100% until "and it seems" at which stage you are doing it again
― moyesery loves kompany (darraghmac), Wednesday, 29 November 2017 01:43 (six years ago) link
i thought the general anxiety around reading tao lin is whether it's communally offensive (an art crime)?
i know orwell comparisons are played out and overused but seriously?
― flappy bird, Wednesday, 29 November 2017 01:44 (six years ago) link
if deuce bigelow: european gigolo can inspire "I hate hate hate hated" this movie, we can at least spare 2 mins hate for tao lin
― Philip Nunez, Wednesday, 29 November 2017 01:49 (six years ago) link
Well no, I'm making an empirical point! Go read any review of a book by Tao Lin. You'll almost invariably find discussion of how the characters relate to Tao Lin himself. In their engagement with Lin's art, the reviewers are thinking about the history of its creation, more often than not. Fact!
― Zelda Zonk, Wednesday, 29 November 2017 01:49 (six years ago) link
Because a I don't think we can work from 'this happens a lot' even if that were the same thing as 'a lot of people describe this as being the case for them' and b even to accept this as true for more than one other person's experience (how can you know your experience mirrors that of another btw that seems... presumptuous) is not at all to say that it is any way 'more true' for me and this would hold even were I the only person to not claim to share that experience
That's long-winded and messy because I'm enjoying it that way, but we're I to clearly state the argument- it doesn't matter how many people say that they feel it is the case that the intent or biography or method of the artist affects their perception of the work they only believe that it does. Of course, their belief makes it so. But the inputs don't.
― moyesery loves kompany (darraghmac), Wednesday, 29 November 2017 01:50 (six years ago) link
isn't this also about the inextricable way art production is linked to commercial interests (distribution, publicity)? In this way enjoyment if art by terrible (abuser, anti-Semite, etc) producer involves feeding those interests and furthering the commercial validity of the artists projects.
― plax (ico), Wednesday, 29 November 2017 02:09 (six years ago) link
i suspect given the minimal monetary stakes, it's more about giving cultural capital to a scoundrel for a work of dubious (consensus) value.
― Philip Nunez, Wednesday, 29 November 2017 02:16 (six years ago) link