Artist and the Art Created
Tom Cruise and the Dixie Chicks have got me thinking...
Both made social faux pas that have led to society shunning their creative works.
My question is why?
Why do we judge the art created by the artist who made it? Are the two irrevocably linked? Does the Dixie Chick's statements about the war against terrorism influence their songs? Does Tom Cruise's belief in Scientology influence his ability to act?
Let's stretch the circumstances- say there's a serial killer who is also a gifted sculptor. Let's also imagine that he sculpts his victims before he kills them. After he is caught and arrested, the sculptures are used as evidence at trial. But what happens next?
Who would want the sculptures? Even if they were brilliantly crafted, would the stain of their creation lead them to be destroyed? Or would they be seen as works of beauty that stand independent of the circumstances in which they were created?
I just don't know.
But I do know that with passing time, the artist becomes less important and the object created becomes more so. That is the artist's gift, that his works can outlive him by centuries, perhaps even longer. For all I know, Leonardo Da Vinci was a thief and a liar- but his works of art are still breathtaking. I don't care what type of person he was, for I'm admiring his works, not his moral bearing.
Contemporary artists have it harder, however- their blood and words, still flowing, intermingle with their creations. Thus any criticism the artist is heaped with falls onto the object.
The sculpture mentioned above, if found centuries later in storage, would be hailed as a great work of art. But today, our knowledge of its origins shades our view of it.
I think we have lost the ability to bifurcate human behavior- men can not be categorized by simply giving them white or black hats. Things are more complicated than that. People can be both good and evil, all at the same time. The murderer can create beautiful works of art, and the preacher can lead his flock to God while secretly turning to sin.
I, for one, think that the Dixie Chicks songs pre-comment are too good to cast aside simply because I disagree with their opinions; I do not have to reject their artistic gifts simply because I disagree with what they think.
As for Tom Cruise, I was never crazy about his movies anyway.
Both made social faux pas that have led to society shunning their creative works.
My question is why?
Why do we judge the art created by the artist who made it? Are the two irrevocably linked? Does the Dixie Chick's statements about the war against terrorism influence their songs? Does Tom Cruise's belief in Scientology influence his ability to act?
Let's stretch the circumstances- say there's a serial killer who is also a gifted sculptor. Let's also imagine that he sculpts his victims before he kills them. After he is caught and arrested, the sculptures are used as evidence at trial. But what happens next?
Who would want the sculptures? Even if they were brilliantly crafted, would the stain of their creation lead them to be destroyed? Or would they be seen as works of beauty that stand independent of the circumstances in which they were created?
I just don't know.
But I do know that with passing time, the artist becomes less important and the object created becomes more so. That is the artist's gift, that his works can outlive him by centuries, perhaps even longer. For all I know, Leonardo Da Vinci was a thief and a liar- but his works of art are still breathtaking. I don't care what type of person he was, for I'm admiring his works, not his moral bearing.
Contemporary artists have it harder, however- their blood and words, still flowing, intermingle with their creations. Thus any criticism the artist is heaped with falls onto the object.
The sculpture mentioned above, if found centuries later in storage, would be hailed as a great work of art. But today, our knowledge of its origins shades our view of it.
I think we have lost the ability to bifurcate human behavior- men can not be categorized by simply giving them white or black hats. Things are more complicated than that. People can be both good and evil, all at the same time. The murderer can create beautiful works of art, and the preacher can lead his flock to God while secretly turning to sin.
I, for one, think that the Dixie Chicks songs pre-comment are too good to cast aside simply because I disagree with their opinions; I do not have to reject their artistic gifts simply because I disagree with what they think.
As for Tom Cruise, I was never crazy about his movies anyway.
posted by Yorick at 11:05 PM
3 Comments:
I don't wish to reward behavior or support the Scientologists in any way shape form or fashion.
Fact: Americans find Islam TWICE as acceptable as Scientology when it comes to religions. The former has Osama bin Laden, most wanted man on Earth. The latteer has Tom Cruise, movie megastar, loved by many. Yet Scientology STILL is reviled.
But see that's the point- people were destroying CDs they'd already purchased. The artist has already been enriched.
I can see not enriching them further, but I don't think their views should diminish their artistic achievements.
For example, those who turn off the song they used to like because of the Dixie Chick's viewpoints- I think their anger is misplaced. The song is simply a song at that point, living well beyond the lives of its creators. The artist should be shunned, but not the creation.
Let me rephrase- shun is too strong a word.
I can understand someone choosing not to sit down and have tea with the Dixie Chicks because of their views- that's a perfectly natural and human reaction.
However, turning their song off when it comes on the radio seems to serve no purpose and denigrate a song that was once universally admired. In other words, the perceptive sins of the artist should not be visited on the art.
Post a Comment
<< Home