I would say it’s not possible. The art IS the artist. The art only is what it is because the artist is who they are. But a lot of people seem to be very comfortable with the idea of separating the art from the artist. What say Lemmy?
I would say it’s not possible. The art IS the artist. The art only is what it is because the artist is who they are. But a lot of people seem to be very comfortable with the idea of separating the art from the artist. What say Lemmy?
I think the first problem is art is so broad we shouldn’t be making generalized sweeping statements. One piece of art might be made by someone and it is its own object, e.g. an unrelated painting of a landscape.Whatever that person has done doesn’t change what it is or what it represents. Perhaps that art doesn’t deserve to be shared or promoted in a way that benefits the artist though.
On the other hand, some art like a film that has so much of the artist in it, can’t stand on its own as much. It’s harder to separate them. It’s ok to enjoy the film but still not share or promote it in any way that benefits the artist. We should be ok with having mixed feelings about it.
As with complex topics, it’s really a grey area, there’s no 1 rule.