Last week I read an article called Böse Onkel (bad or evil uncles), published in the Austrian paper called Falter. This article discusses whether or not the work an artist produces should be separated from the creator. This topic is by far not a new one and is also talked about in the essay The Death of the Author by Roland Barthes (1967). In it he argues that a text should be read and interpreted without the author in mind. This is a recurring debate, including one of the most recent examples involving Peter Handke and Austrian author who was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature.
The Death of the Author, or the separation between the author and their work is a very difficult but interesting topic. Of course this also includes other kinds of artists not only authors. My question is, how are we supposed to separate the art from the artist and is it really advisable to do so?
In my understanding and experience, it is very difficult for a creator to not put something of themselves into their work. Of course, the difficulty does not stay the same with each piece of artwork that is being created. If I, for example, painted a portrait of a person it is very possible and probably expected of me, to put as little of myself into the painting as possible. However, the outcome might still be influenced by my view or opinion of the person. Our experiences and opinions shape the way we create. Even someone who seemingly captures the truth like a photographer, decides what to frame and how.
We convey meaning with what we create and we influence what we create.
I dare say we lose a certain amount of context and depth when we take the artist completely out of the equation and people should be aware of that. Again, this is not true for every piece of art to the same amount. Some artworks are created specifically without meaning and sometimes they are simply created to be beautiful or functional.
It is important to look at works separated from the artist and to view them on their own as well as to consider the creator. This gives us different ways of looking at something, to interpret and form an opinion.
Nonetheless, I am aware that every one of us consumes pieces of art without ever considering the artist. I do not see anything wrong with watching a movie, reading a book or listening to a song without starting an in depth research project about the creator. A certain amount of awareness as to what the intended message was or might have been, however, does not hurt.
My next question is, where does the separation begin and end?
In the case of Peter Handke it is being argued that a person who played down war crimes or even denied they happened, as well as supported a leader accused of such crimes, should not be the recipient of a Nobel Prize. In a situation like this, the separation between the work and the artist is simply not possible. You do not award a prize to a piece of work, you award it to the person who created said piece. In doing so you are praising them, encouraging them to continue doing what they do and ultimately, giving them a platform. Furthermore, to come back to what I mentioned earlier, who is to say how much of the opinions and worldviews are actually portrait in an artist’s work and what message is being sent.
To conclude, I believe that works of art should be viewed with and without the artist in mind. The intent of the artist, however, should not entirely be taken out of the equation. For one, considering the creator might actually give us a deeper insight into what we are consuming. However, it is also very interesting and important to see how that interpretation can change if we do separate the art and the artist.
All in all it is very important to consider what person we put into the limelight and what message we and they want to convey. A famous artist and every other person in the public eye should be aware of the power they hold, as should we.
InkyBlackSnow 