I would say it’s not possible. The art IS the artist. The art only is what it is because the artist is who they are. But a lot of people seem to be very comfortable with the idea of separating the art from the artist. What say Lemmy?

  • Bobo The Great@startrek.website
    0·
    2 days ago

    You can. I can enjoy Hitler’s paintings because they contains no nazism, even if a nazist mind produced them (you could argue that in his youth he was not yet a nazi, but that still doesn’t matter).

    Heck, I’m going even further and say that even if a form of art posses some inheritely bad aspect, you can still separate it from other artistic characteristics.

    Let’s say Hitler did a panting of a gas chamber killing people in a death camp, but is painted in such a skillfull and technically relevant way to be revolutionary in the art, then it’s ok if people like it (technically), it’s ok if it’s owned and hang in a museum, even if it depicts real, evil and needless suffering. You can approcciate something technically or artistically without having to embrace the ideals it represents. And it’s important to not cancel things just because bad people did it, because remembering is important.

    As for modern bad artist, it’s more complicated because you might not want to financially support an artist who is a criminal/terrible person, but that still doesn’t mean you can’t appreciate their art.