Today's longread looks at the complicated relationship between art and artists. It's a fascinating case because to me there is no clear "right" answer to how to approach the situation described in the article. At one level, the meaning of a piece of art is determined by the viewer and renders the artist to be more of a footnote. But it also seems that an artist's intention (to the extent that it is known) also influences interpretation. Even if the author's intentions are irrelevant, are there moral issues with supporting an artist whose beliefs are troubling? There's a lot going on here, and I'd love to hear perspectives on possible responses.
"Charles Krafft Is a White Nationalist Who Believes the Holocaust Is a Deliberately Exaggerated Myth" by Jen Graves
Published in the Stranger, February 13, 2013
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/charles-krafft-is-a-white-nationalist-who-believes-the-holocaust-is-a-deliberately-exaggerated-myth/Content?oid=15995245
Eric
It seems like it's pretty hard to deny that regardless of if we SHOULD care about the origin of a piece of art as opposed to taking it on it's own terms, it's undeniable that we totally do care. I thought this TED talk was a really excellent argument on this topic, and as a bonus involves a great Nazi art story right at the beginning: http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_bloom_the_origins_of_pleasure.html
ReplyDeleteThe sad thing is that controversy over a piece of art/artist usually increases the value of his or her art.
ReplyDeleteSo I wonder if Krafft is playing on this by being elusive about the meaning until his work was famous enough to be in the coffers of art museums and collectors. Now there will be buzz anytime he comes out with something new.
Paul Raymond said something along these lines: it doesn't matter if it's good press or bad press as long as I'm in the news.