Can you seperate the art from artist?

philtecturophy said:
Depends, if you mean separate Chopin's pieces such as his nocturnes, ballades, scherzo, etc. from Chopin, then no, its not possible

Each classical piano pieces are uniquely related to the composer, you can directly tell who compose this or that piece particularly if you have listened to some of the pieces composed by those particular composers. Chopin's Nocturnes or etudes can only uniquely be connected to Chopin. Others may try to imitate it, but will not be able to

Now Rap IMO is not a music genre, its just people talking really fast with beats, maybe a little bit of melody, but people talk also have melodies, are they art? Of course not. Coz when we start to say that people talking are form of art, then the sound of my fart will also be an art form, coz it can form a simple melody as well. Poetry is an art, because the words can be beautiful. But most rap, if not all, are talking garbage, so its not art form

An art should be unique and really has the quality of perfection amd beauty in it. It is subjective, yes, but it can be determined whether its worth to be called an art or not

Meusnier said:
No, there is no need to. But spare me your moraline, please.


Amity rather asked whether you could still respect Chopin after learning that he had stayed 9 years with someone as boring as George Sand.

StarfireDragon said:
Yes, I advocate separating the art from the artist in most situations, so long as the work is good. Hell, in some cases the actions of the artists are what makes the work popular in the first place. Take a look at G.G Allin or Burzum for example. I dont think most of the people who listen to them actually condone what they did. But the work is valuable as it provides insight into the mind of people like them.

philtecturophy said:


Never heard of George Sand before, but I looked it up on wikipedia, and he was a famous French Novelist. Seems he has some connection to Chopin, but too lazy to read about it in Wiki

Amityblight said:
@Meusnier
I don't know who they are. I try not to learn anything about European people in history. I am from france I never consider myself french always Asian and Jewish,

Meusnier said:

It is a "she"—George Sand is the pen name of Aurore Dupin. They were famously lovers during 9 years. I am surprised that you did not try to learn more about Chopin's life. Céline praised her memoirs, but their value is mostly historical, not literary.


It is a pity, for ignorance is never justifiable. And it does not even make sense from your viewpoint considering the fundamental importance of the history of the Jews in Europe.

philtecturophy said:

Now Rap IMO is not a music genre, its just people talking really fast with beats, maybe a little bit of melody, but people talk also have melodies, are they art? Of course not. Coz when we start to say that people talking are form of art, then the sound of my fart will also be an art form, coz it can form a simple melody as well. Poetry is an art, because the words can be beautiful. But most rap, if not all, are talking garbage, so its not art form

An art should be unique and really has the quality of perfection amd(sic) beauty in it. It is subjective, yes, but it can be determined whether its worth to be called an art or not

ThoreauBureau said:


Can we all just agree to not post bait on the forums? Literally every thread is full of garbage takes like this and I'm beginning to lose faith in humanity. This is such a Ben Shapiro take that nobody in music would corroborate. Next will we be saying that Shoenberg's music isn't actually such because of his rejection of tonality?

Also Hitler's paintings are mediocre postcard crap only worth any study because such a terrible person made them. Sort of like serial killer artwork is only viewed because of the connection to a serial killer. In that case people are only viewing the art BECAUSE of the artist.

So that boils down to the question: can we truly separate the art from the artist? The answer is yes - but with a caveat. Once we learn about the artist, it becomes increasingly difficult to separate them from the work. Hearing a random song on the radio is just that: random. But learning about the artist and then the about the composition, and then their life story etc. the art becomes more and more entwined. So I think realistically we cannot separate the artist from their art, we can only choose to ignore.

philtecturophy said:


I doubt you understand what art truly is, or incapable of having any sense of art. You cannot just say everything that has sound is an art, or everything that can be visualized by sight are art form. If I put a banana on top of a cow dung, is it an art? Of course not. Idiots can say, yeah it has artistic values, then the value of humanity is reduced at that point.

Most rap is not art, likewise chacarron by El Chombo is not an art as well. Its just sound, like engine's sounds etc.

ThoreauBureau said:


I doubt you even understand what the English language truly is, or I doubt you are incapable of having any sense of writing. You cannot just write something and say it has truth to it. /s Doesn't it sound silly to say something like that? If I put a bunch of numbers together and called it a proof you would be right to call me stupid. Just like in math, you need understanding to write something and then have it be true. What you are saying lacks even that basic logic. Will you say that Mozart is less of an artist because he liked to put potty humor in his music? Did he therefore degrade humanity? Perhaps before insulting someone - and this is just a theory - you should take the time to educate yourself on the subject. There is pretty much no scholarly work that agrees with you (unless you count some writings by Adorno who is hotly contested). Feel free to actually do research on this and come back with a functioning response. Think of it as the scientific method, if you like. Let us further humanity together by gaining new and nuanced understanding.