Are the artist's work and life different entities that should be judged apart...

are the artist's work and life different entities that should be judged apart? of course current society as a whole thinks otherwise right now, but what do YOU think?

Attached: serveimage.jpg (2560x1717, 437K)

right I heard this guy raped his daughter

That may be, but he knows how to hold a monkey.

Art has no morality

The art and artist are one and the same. Whether or not you should approach it through some moralising lens is a different matter.

this
interesting thought, but would you honestly consider art and artist as one entity and not art as a product of the artist?
how much of himself the artist puts in his work for the public is limited by himself
for instance, you can easily see Woody Allen's or Tarantino's complete personalities in their works, although you can't do the same for Lean or Coppola
you can see their styles and approaches to visual narrative, but their work doesn't showcase their identities as much
Besides, it's also the matter of separating what is a creative artist from a performing artist
Klaus Kinski as an actor had little to no say in the structure of a film, and his role in it was merely that of a tool: performing the task that director and screenwriter had set him up to

If they're dead it doesn't make a difference whether you enjoy their work or not. Kinski might have been a bad person but he isn't profiting from you torrenting Aguirre.

Depends. Mostly the answer is of course to judge them as seperate entities. There are some cases to be made however that some art is not as good as some people might judge it to be which become evident when you examine the creator.

If you see a scene as great because of some details that turns out to be unintentional, is that scene no longer great? In my opinion yes, at least from the perspective of critiquing the work of an artist. The point I'm making is that you might discover their lack of talent, and therefore that what some might call artistic or great is actually unintentional or a byproduct of their less admirable intentions, by looking at the artist. Is Klaus Kinski being a good actor if he's really convincing in how he lusts over an underage girl? If it is acting then perhaps yes. If it is not acting, then NO.

I have a difficult time with people like Klaus Kinski but when he's genuinely being a good actor I can still enjoy it and consider the film great. There are some things that sour my enjoyment of a film despite my willingness to judge things seperately though, like finding out more about what happened behind the scenes of Paper Moon. People like Vincent Gallo I have no problem writing off because my impression is that his films are just vanity projects and not worth my time, even if they can be perceived as great works of art by others or whatever.

ask yourself
can bad people do great things?

They are separate. You can't learn anything about Kinski's personal life by watching his performance in Aguirre, so it should not factor into your criticism of the film. If you want to criticise the business and industry around the film for hiring Kinski, then that's what you're criticising but it's not the film then.

Kinski is still my hero.

Attached: klauskinskiwesterncollection5.jpg (712x300, 35K)

The majority of the artists whose works I admire were not exactly nice people irl. I generally loathe the “work” of SJWs because their “work” is so often imbued with repulsive virtue signaling, a feigned “goodness” with no aesthetic value. I always thought good art came through the resolution of painful experiences, and that people who have suffered through great pain tend not to have a lot of time for virtue signaling or even giving a shit about being a “good” person.

We shouldn't defend a reprehensible person just because they made great art and we shouldn't dismiss great art, just because it was made by a reprehensible person.

Judge them as they are and get over any kind of dissonance.
Art can be evaluated on the artist's life experiences, it can be evaluated on the artists intentions and it can be evaluated on what it evokes in its audience.
The artist is a human, their life has brought them to a point where they are creating and their works reflect part of them accordingly.
Whatever they create is a truth even if dishonest, to disguise what they truly are will undoubtedly reveal more about the layers of their being and how we perceive them.
And how the audience responds both to the piece and revelations surrounding the artist helps us define that truth.
The discrepancy in itself is worth considering as an extension of the work.
It's the trifecta of the relationship between perception, reality and time.

To that end we should not isolate a work from the artist's past or present.
It's one with the piece, it extends it rather than soils it.

Truly great art REQUIRES reprehensible people. Discuss.

>Truly great art REQUIRES people
ftfy

No. You can't divorce something entirely from its creator. People who say this are faggots who were told they should enjoy the works of woody allen and roman polanski but feel about what they did in their lives.
That being said I don't think it matters what kinski did, he was completely devoted to his craft and great art comes from honesty.

Attached: 1535254915783.jpg (1200x792, 439K)

Kinski didn't rape anyone. His daughter was a lying cunt

> Truly great art REQUIRES conflict.
discuss

Woody Allen and Polanski suck because they have not SUFFERED

>that pic
subtle, good work

I'd definitely agree that the greatest artists are often maladjusted in some way, because not having a good upbringing (whether it's through their own mental health or the actions of others) often cultivates their creativity in their younger years.

However, there's a big difference between that and Klaus Kinski raping his daughter. I don't think you can ever overlook something like that, especially from an actor - every acting performance they give is deeply personal and will include multiple aspects of their own personality.

bump