Art vs Artist vs Viewer's Principals?

Miles Davis. Gave away/donated my albums/cassettes/cd's 20 years ago.
Couldn't listen anymore.
Loved his work.

This is something to which I have given a great deal of thought. Circumstances matter. Franz Josef Haydn fooled around on his wife, and eventually left her for another woman. At the same time, his marriage was to the sister of the woman he loved, and was consistently unhappy for them both. He became the lover of a widow, but seemed to have given up on women (he was, after all, in his 60s by then). His most unlovely characteristic was, or seemed to be, greed. It is worth noting that when he was taken to Vienna to be a member of what we call the Boy's Choir, he was often hungry, because the Kapellmeister, with whom he lodged, neglected to feed him. He was thrown on the street at age 17, and literally had to sing for his supper (a member of the cathedral orchestra allow him to sleep in his lodging, but he sang on the streets because the man could not afford to feed him as well as his family). I am somewhat ambivalent about Haydn, because I don't know him to have been willfully cruel to others, nor to have played the great man to those around him. On balance, I consider him no more morally flawed than the general run of humanity, and a good deal of a better man than many "great men."

But people like Pablo Picasso and Richard Wagner disgust me with their deliberate cruelty. Wagner in particular is accused of Antisemitism, an accusation which is hotly debated to this day. He certainly was a German nationalist and a "racialist" (those who believed their "race" or nation to be superior). There was a great deal of criticism of his work in his lifetime, and he was compared unfavorably to Brahms. (Brahms was an arrogant **** who always played the great man, so there is little to choose between them as far as I'm concerned.) I don't disagree with the complaint that Wagner's music was loud and bombastic--but the prélude to Parsifal and the Liegstod at the end of [/i]Tristan Und Isolde[/i] are both hauntingly beautiful. In contrast, every time I've head a composition by Brahms for the first time, I've thought, "That must be Brahms." It particularly annoyed me that he publicly criticized Antonio Vivaldi for having written "only one concerto." Vivaldi wrote well over a hundred and Brahms was implying that they all sound the same. None of these are big complaints, other than them playing the great man, and Picasso is said to have been particularly cruel to those around him.

But it should be noted that this question should not apply solely to artists. Horatio Nelson, the national hero of England, raised to the status of a saint, was a truly vulgar man. He quickly succumbed to the seduction of Emma Hamilton, the wife of the consul in Naples. He neglected his duties and committed some enormities as a result. Incredibly, this took place under Sir William Hamilton's own roof, and at one point, Hamilton told him he had gone too far. But the ugly ménage continued nonetheless. He was horribly cruel to his own wife, and encouraged that behavior in his siblings. His apotheosis was the battle of Trafalgar--which in fact, no longer mattered. Napoleon had broken up the camps facing England, renamed l'Armée de l'Angleterre to la Grand armée and marched off into Austria and undying glory months before Nelson's great victory. If you're in England, it would probably not be a good idea to bring any of that up.

Even George Washington, who lived an almost blameless life, was obsessively hateful toward Indians, undoubtedly as a result of his experience in the French and Indian War. He was able to make a distinction between tribes allied to the United States and those allied to the British during the revolution, but his attitude tended to permeate the attitudes of most Americans.

Tough question all around, and not just with alleged artisits.

It can be sickening, though. Marion Zimmer Bradley was long one of my favorite fantasy authors. Then I learned that her daughter had accused he of sexual abuse. I knew that her second husband had spent the rest of his life in prison for the sexual abuse of adolescent boys. When I learned of the accusation against her, it cast several of her novels in a new, and really creepy, light.

Tsr mde a noise when he mentioned Caravaggio , His work speaks for itself and doesnt hqve anything to do with his reprehnsible hobbies of murder nd theft. Look at Thomas Eakins, he was diddling his students , many of whom were underage freshmen girls.

My rt instructors included some well known abstract impressionists who were total scumbags in life. On of my techers when I ws a kid of like 12 was David Baziotes who was a total drunk nd a communist. He as a leaser in colorist art of the 50's and 60's (he dies in 1963 and I thought he was a great teacher).
John Costigan was another one and he, besides being a drunk, got me smoking weed. Yet his work is unique in that he was a real force in work that was later taken up by Helen Frankenthaler.

Look at ALL the rock artists. They were almost 100% loaded through their careers.

A lot of it is that these people, as artists, are unable to handle fame, and lots of people who want to be near them. So "taking the edge off" was a universal trait.
My favorite R&B and modern jazz singer/pianist was Ray Charles, This guy was a train wreck. Picasso, like Dali , was a narcissist who loved to belittle women (like Pollock too).

I think we should step back and look at the products of their talents and, whether they did their art in private, in public, or even in jail, they cannot be dismissed as voices of their times.

I have looked at the products of the talent--did you understand nothing of what I wrote? As it happens, I consider that what Picasso and Pollock produced not to have had sufficient merit to excuse their behavior.

I also consider that there have been talents in any age whose artistic merit was not challenged by their private character. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky is the greatest example. He was undoubtedly homosexual, and at a time when that was a capital crime in Russia. He was briefly married, and that was a disaster--but he never blamed Antonia. He was associated for more than a dozen years with Nadezhda von Meck, a wealthy widow of a railroad magnate, and a successful businesswoman in her own right. He was eventually denounced to the public prosecutor, and his former classmates at the Russian Musical Society and the Saint Petersburg Conservatory urged him to commit suicide so as not to besmirch those institutions, which he did.

I know of no cruelty to which he subjected anyone. His skills were magnificent. He took a strong line against the criticisms of Brahms and derided Brahms so-called North German school of composition, as lacking emotional content and context. Johann Strauss was known as the Waltz King, but Tchaikovsky's waltzes were, in my never humble opinion, much superior. His symphonies and concerti were works of true genius. The first ;movement of his sixth symphony has nine changes of tempo, and they integrate smoothly in the overall work. His ballets had scores as artistic as any opera. As I've said, I know of no case of him willfully hurting anyone.

I will continue to judge artists and alleged artists on what I know of their character as well as the opus.

Not so much a great artist, but a comic actor whose work I enjoyed greatly, Chris Langham. I was very disappointed when the truth emerged about him. He's only got a bit part in Life of Brian, so that's OK but I can't watch early episodes of The Thick Of It.

what we each may think of any artists merits is immaterial to the host of all art work out there. I recall how one of the old Abuzz artists excoriated the Wyeth families abilities .I gave him a bit a **** about how he is just displaying some jealousy for not producing like them .
Pollock was a product of marketing and quite a dissipate , but when the votes are all in, despite his narcissism, Picasso will be among the very top artists of the past century. He spent much of his life "unlearning " his impressive talents as a draughtsman and a colorist and becoming more like the "fauve".

You think your way, and I'll think mine. I find your pose as an expert on the plastic arts to be tedious.

Im a hobbyist with a studio arts degree and some great teachers. I think you should tudy a bit more about the skills displayed by Picasso.
I "know what I like" ,and, unlike you, I dont think Ive ever made believe that I play an arts expert on TV.

You seem to have the skin thickness of a. Apparently noone can have a disagreement with you unless one is first employed in kissing your ass.
If you wish to discuss why you think Picasso is an amateur "no talent" (my words paraphrasing yours), Id love to hear your analysis.

"Science and Charity" (A painting by Picasso in 1897 when he was 15 years old)

Picasso


by e.e. cummings

Picasso
you give us things
which
bulge:grunting lungs pumped full of sharp thick mind

you make us shrill
presents always
shut in the sumptuous screech of
simplicity

(out of the
black unbunged
Something gushes vaguely a squeak of planes
or

between squeals of
Nothing grabbed with circular shrieking tightness
solid screams whispers.)
Lumberman of the Distinct

your brain's
axe only chops hugest inherent
Trees of Ego,from
whose living and biggest

bodies lopped
of every
prettiness

you hew form truly

You apparently, think that taste is the result of a majority vote. I said only that I don't care for Picasso's work--I think it shows little originality and I am entitled to my opinion. You have, since you came here, shown the grossly parochial trait of condemning anyone whose taste is not your own.

The topic of the thread is clear enough, both in the title and the OP. You haven't, as far as I can see, addressed the topic. I addressed the topic with regard to composers and writers, as well as painters. You chose to focus on my remarks about Pollock and Picasso so you could again pass judgment on someone else's tastes. Your words don't even come close to a paraphrase of what I said, and they are an attempt to take the discussion to an incendiary stage. No, I don't wish to discuss it, because it's not the topic of the the thread, nor is it a topic which interests me. My tastes are not subject to your review. It's hilarious for you to say that anyone else is thin-skinned. You went absolutely ballistic the last time I pointed out how lazy you are in not reviewing your posts and correcting errors before you hit submit. Your past injuries don't make that impossible, nor even, I suspect, difficult for you to do. It takes me a long time to make a post, precisely because I do review the material in an attempt to correct all the errors.

If you wish to dissent from my moral judgments on the artists concerned, have at it.

Youre balmy. I like nothing better than to discuss why I like something and why my discussion partner think its ****. However, when someone like you gets all defensive and attacks at something that most of the folks herein dont even consider provocative and you strike out like a badger, you suck the discussion outta me and, I now will leave you to molest others to feed your delicate ego.

ENJOY

Oh, poor baby . . . nothing to say on the topic, eh?