Does Personality Or Life Story Of An Artist Influence You?
I can't decide. A great painting is great on its own, and can be equally appreciated whether it's signed or anonymous. On the other hand, why it's great, what went into making it great, what made the artist - known or unknown - choose this color or that line, this proportion or that brush stroke does add an extra dimension.
I don't think the viewer should appreciate a work because it is by, say, Picasso, and for no other reason. But knowing about Picasso, about his life, his personality, and his tastes can provide a different angle from which to appreciate it.
In particular, knowing the time and culture in which an artist lived and was trained, can give the viewer a foundation from which to make comparisons and analyses.
Does personality
shepaints wrote:It is rather a quandary for me, as to whether
I want to know about the artist's background
and what circumstances led to the work, or to
just let the work speak to me
(and the background I bring to the work) on its own face value.
(My underlining.) Among the circumstances I include the training and culture of the artist's time, as I said above, but this time I want to add that artists breaking new ground are products of those circumstances just as surely as artists who follow in a more established groove. Groundbreakers are not merely looking forward, they are reacting against their backgrounds - sometimes for a love of experiment and a fascination with the new, sometimes out of dislike for what they consider the rigidity and lack of imagination that they see inherent in their training. Here is a point where personality can kick in very powerfully.
Exactly these features are what viewers can bring to the experience, as well.
JoanneDorel wrote:Coulber21 are you saying that the art of Irving Stone let to the art of Vincent Van Gogh being accepted because of his personal story?
Undoubtably, part of Van Gogh's widespread popularity is due to Irving Stone's two books, "Lust for Life" and "Dear Theo." The first book was based on correspondence between Vincent and his brother Theo presented in his second book, "Dear Theo." The movie "Lust for Life," starring Kirk Douglas, spread Van Gogh's fame even further.
Coluber, no doubt those books and movies have made Van Gogh a more popularly appreciated painter in recent decades. But you acknowledge, of course, that Van Gogh was famous well before the birth of Irving Stone.
I don't think Irivine Stone had any impact on the popularity of Van Gogh in Europe
Right, Vivien. And he was NOT needed. Van Gogh was famous enough without him.
For me, I need a quick background check before reading a book (can't talk about paintings, I barely can talk about books) to know more or less what to expect and many times to know why the author writes what he does.
Examples of it:
I think the easiest is Horacio Quiroga (considered by many as the Latin-American Poe), his step-father killed himself while he was young, he killed his best friend by accident, one of his wives commited suicide as did his lover and a man he admired, the other left him and he lived in the jungle for a few years... and it clearly shows on his books, even on "Cuentos de la Selva" which he wrote for his children is dark tainted
The other one I can think of is Hermann Hesse, he truly lived the way he writes of in his books. And I truly respect that and made me feel his writings are more real.
Good point, JoeFX. No doubt knowledge of the life of an artist (of any art) can enhance our appreciation (or depreciation) of his or her work. But there is something to be said for letting the work stand by itself. I think Picasso was a jerk, but I love (most of) his work.
I wonder how known Vincent would be today were it not for Theo.
I feel it is important to separate the work from the artist, to a sort of 'arm's length' point; while all information is valuable in some way, and information about the artist always intrigues me, the work itself must be examined as a separate entity, and the message it conveys, while it may well be coloured by the background and circumstances of the author, must be 'felt' on its own merit, unencumbered by 'baggage'.
that's well put - the work must stand on its own merit - but the background can add a whole extra dimension.
I don't know anything about the life of Picasso, but I'm a firm believer that if his attitude would've been different so would've been his work, maybe taking away the genius of the paintings.
JoeFX, I can see how the personality and hang-ups of the artist will influence the content of his work. For example, Picasso's, and perhaps, deKooning's, attiltudes toward women clearly influence what they "say" in their paintings about women. But their artistic tastes and ability to paint interesting and aesthetically powerful forms and compositions is another matter.
I find that the more I know, the more I like.
Because you've found more to know/like?
Personality and life story make a huge difference, richer I would say.
Wouldn't you like to bring Vincent back just for a day and show him what he has done for the world, although he would proably drop dead again after he found out what "Sunflowers" last sold for. Was it 42 million?
JL, they would still have the same ability... but their paintings would be different, not better or worse, just different
I think we've gone a little off topic
