Said Bob Dylan, asked about "the current debate separating the art from the artist."
That will give the academics studying Bob something to think about.
२० डिसेंबर, २०२२
"I’m unaware of the current debate about separating the art from the artist. It’s news to me. Maybe it’s an academic thing."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१२ टिप्पण्या:
If I didn’t separate the art from the artist, I wouldn’t be able to enjoy any movies or music because most actors and musicians hold political opinions contrary to mine.
Of course he's aware of the debate, there's very little that escapes his attention. He's belittling the issue by suggesting it's just an academic question not worthy of his notice.
"Of course he's aware of the debate...."
What are you, some kind of academic?
What are you, some kind of academic?
Naw. I ain't no academic. Only have read one of F. Scott Fitzgerald's books and didn't see what all the fuss was about.
I have heard a lot of Dylan though and can connect some of the dots.
Yeah, he's blowing smoke, though I don't really blame him for avoiding the topic.
The separation of art and artist is just one facet of the eternal debate over who and what determines "meaning". The creator has a point of view and presumably a message to convey even if they don't consciously formulate one. The observers have another point of view, actually many, and may arrive at destinations orthogonal to the creator's. Think "Born in the USA".
It's impossible to separate the art from the artist. There's only people whom pretend they can do it because they cannot possibly hold two apparently contradictory thoughts 💭 simultaneously inside their infantile pus buckets.
That was a new thing when Bob was born, if not long before. It came back, or took a new form, when he was hitting middle age. Some ideas make it out of academia, some don't. If you were a 60s folkie you might have gotten into some things -- Jung, Hesse, the Beats, Dylan Thomas -- but probably not the "New Criticism." What generation you belong to also matters. It was less likely that Bob would have had much contact with Deconstruction. Still, he's had a long life and a lot of free time, so he probably was exposed to the idea at some point. Either he doesn't remember or he's just funnin' with y'all. Probably funnin'.
Howard ends up 180 degrees off course again, in his constant campaign to contrast Howard with the Not-Howard, to the glory of Howard.
We have no choice but to separate art and artist. Or rather, since they ARE separate things [categories] it makes no sense to pretend that they aren't. And since only a few people will actually know enough about an artist to make their opinions worth noting and debating, the art is out in the open, with its own existence, and will always mean more than the details of the creator's life.
It's the relationship between the two that exercises a lot of academics, and moralists, and academic moralists. Most people have better sense than to worry about it.
If we can’t separate the artist from his work, how can we enjoy Wagner?
Reminds me of the Don McLean song, 'Starry starry night.'
people whom pretend they can do it
They probably can: people whom are more objective than people who.
separating the art from the artist."
=======
is legal term for this == appropriation or misappropriation
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा