Water Cooler Musings: Art for Art’s Sake

Wow. I have been remiss ever since I started working on novel #3, so much so that I completely forgot to post a Water Cooler Musings for last week. For that I am sorry, but I will make it up to you by posting two this week. So, we’ll be drinking a lot of water. That’s cool.

So, this morning I received the daily prompt in my inbox. Now, you know I so it sporadically, but this one spoke to me. In fact, I posed it to my colleagues at the water cooler and they had a lot to say about it as well. It was something like, “Do you feel you have to agree with an artist’s opinion or point of view in order to appreciate his/her art?”

This turned out to be quite the contentious subject, with some of us believing strongly one way and the rest believing just as strongly the other. There was no middle ground. And I guess that makes sense with this topic. I certainly think you can enjoy someone’s art without believing the way they do, say politically, spiritually, or any other way. I don’t think Snoop Dogg is a good role model, but he has some seriously slamming beats. I am not a fan of the way Liam Gallagher lives his life, but I can sing every single song Oasis ever produced (with the British accent too). Andy Warhol lived a life I would never live, and did some pretty disgusting things in the process. But he also created provocative art that speaks to me. The same is true of Edgar Allan Poe.

But some people at the water cooler think someone’s life and convictions can’t help but bleed over into their art, making it propaganda, and making it impossible for them to give it credence. For example, Adolf Hitler wrote a dynamic treatise entitled Mein Kampf that has definite merit on its own, but this group of people cannot even bring themselves to read it because of the other things its author did.

And I understand their side. I do. They can’t separate the person from the art, and I can. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not patting myself on the back for being able to do this, and the rest of my water cooler buddies agree with me on this. I’m just calling a spade a spade. Art must exist separately from its artist, true art anyway. Yes, the artist influences the art, but then they set it free. And it must sink or swim on its own.

There is an artist who urinates on his canvasses and calls it art. That is not art. And I judge the “art” as harshly as I judge the person. The same is true of the “meat”art, in which the artist hangs dead carcasses from the ceiling and invites gallery goers to observe. That is also not art. But when it comes to real art (and we disagreed on what constitutes real art, and what doesn’t fit) there is a huge dividing line.

On which side do you fit?

Sam

Water Cooler Musings Archive