Even the most revered artist creates something he or she isn't proud of.
If we were to ask the question in a more contemporary way, such as, "is the photographer separate from the photograph?" I feel like that would warrant a different response. I would argue that a photographer's only job is to capture a moment of time, emotion contained within the frame of his lens. But at the same time, it is the photographer's choice to tell a story, and can be told in many different ways depending on the choice of lighting, camera angles, etc.
But when we put this question in the context of painting, my answer would be completely different. I would say that it is the painter's job to tell a story subjectively, rather than objectively, meaning that he should take into account his own personal feelings about a particular subject.
But in a more generic sense, how do we determine when we can and cannot connect art to the artist?
If we were to look at contemporary artists, such as those who put their work out on social media platforms like Instagram, just having a name connected to the art means that the artist wanted a connection to exist between the two. But I would also say that there are times when art and the artist are mutually exclusive, even if there is a name that connects the two.
There is an English graffiti artist named Banksy, who is notorious for vandalizing buildings with various messages, often politically charged. The interesting part about Banksy is that nobody has ever seen his face. Nobody even knows if it is just one person, or a small group. It is this anonymity that separates the art from the artist, while emphasizing an agenda that supports the art.
Within this scope, the meaning of the art becomes amplified, and along with it, so do the ideas that the artist supports. So in a way, art never is truly separate from the artist.
This is a response to a video made by Savannah Brown. In it, she discussed the question in a more personal way, asking "if the artist was an asshole, but his art was genuinely amazing, how would you feel about the art?" or something along those lines. That is an interesting take on the question. Would your perceived notions of the artist change the way you look at his art?
I would say that nobody is truly without bias, and anyone who knows about the artist as a person will definitely have an impact as to how the art is received. On the other hand, if the one perceiving the art is in the dark, and is unaware of the artist's demeanor as a person, then it is up to the person to determine whether the art is good or not.
I think that there is always a more intimate connection between the artist and the art he makes, and unless the public eye is aware of that relationship, then the art would be separate from the artist until the connection is revealed.
If you enjoyed reading this post, be sure to show your support by upvoting, replying, and following my blog for more updates in the future!