Week 4, Chuck Klosterman Reading
Paste a discussion question/comment

I like the idea of the “metaphor arriving already unpacked” because there’s nothing to interpret or skew, everything is laid out for you. I think this translates into design practice through grid systems or hierarchy of information.

A very interesting look on perception of the artist and the actual art. It also made me think about the public’s perception on deceased celebrities, whether someone whose image was good or bad and the effects of someone talking bad or good on their works. 

I understand when the author says it is hard, and people tend to not relate how a person behaves in daily life with how this persons performs as an artist, cus it is like two identities of a person exist at the same time, but don’t seem to relate very much. While there are still people who believe that true art comes from pure ambition and heart, and any sort of creation is based on one as a person first. Then it comes to something that exists on the surface. This can be a personal choice and one’s own belief. While I don’t like when the author gets judgmental saying if you don’t like Lou Reed you just have terrible taste in everything. By saying I don’t like someone’s music, it may show that I'm not a huge fan of such genre or the artist’s style is just not my cup of tea, but should have nothing to do with taste. What so called “good taste” seems to be a lie. As a classical pianist, it is interesting that I saw people in the past using the term to make classical music seem superior, hence make themselves privileged. There were people who liked to judge genres such as rock and jazz. While now people not from the mainstream, or people who share interests in things not recognised as “high-end” start to use the term against others in the same way. It seems that by saying we are not the niche group, you the mainstream is just cliche. Again, when speaking for myself, I could simply say I don’t like all pop music for no reason. While I will never judge people who love pop music and say everyone should love classical music and listen to Kissin. This also relates to how artists’ work become symbol of “good taste” when people don’t care about the true meaning. Some people just want to follow the trend and pretend to understand so that they can fit into the “good taste” group.

Lou Reeds example compares to many in the industry today. Klosterman states that Reed showed what truly mattered about the artist, it was the art, itself. This leads to a controversial debate of,” Should the art be separated by the artist?” I, personally, would not separate the two. The art is a manifestation of the artists mind, therefore it is an extension of them. If the artist has questionable behavior, the art should simply not be supported. Supporting someone with such attitude, would promote and put them in position of power.

Reading this made me think of the recent death of Kobe Bryant, a basketball legend, but also a man that was accused of rape, and the age old debate of wether we can celebrate an individuals work when there is so much controversy around their personal lives. Personally, your work (especially as an artist) is a reflection of the life you lead, and so these two things cannot live or be acknowledged separately.

There’s a lot of talk today about separating the art from the artist, but in my opinion, that’s a dangerous slope that can lead to the same blind iconicism that leaves some male artists invulnerable to critique. Artists like Chuck Close, who are prominent for their great artwork, need to understand that the rest of the world is out there- and by ignoring their actions, we set a dangerous precedent. 

Personally, the question of “should we remove the artist from their art” sits on a really fine line. In many scenarios I feel like, we often times turn a blind eye to the actions of artists who quite frankly make some questionable decisions. However, often times their work has greatly affect their field and even inspires others. I would love to say that I 100% refuse to support artists who commit questionable actions, however, I am definitely guilty of still “supporting” some of these artists. 

“Every journalist he insulted? Every audience member he ridiculed?”. Many people in the spotlight often commit actions that are unacceptable but as celebrities and famous artists, they are forgiven. However, I think I still believe that who you are and your work are intertwined. Hard-work and talent doesn’t justify or excuse committing wrongful actions.

Frank Sinatra, Johnny Cash, Woody Allen and Lou Reed. If we reduce every artist’s work to their wrong doings, the world would be deprived of great art and the joy that comes along with it. At the same time, an artist has a responsibility to use his or her craft to change the way people think. It is a power to influence an audience’s priorities or approach to life. While Lou Reed’s tainted personality did not affect the value of his music, he lost out on a chance to change people’s lives for the better.