Miss KanishkaCould a painting show kindness if the artist wasn’t kind? yes. Could a book teach humanity if the author didn’t practice it? Yes. Why? Maybe because art is a separate entity.
Often when looking at a piece of art we instantly want to know who created it. What were they thinking? What inspired them to paint a certain scene? What emotion did they wish to portray? What event did they draw from? Whilst this is entirely natural to do as art originates from a human’s mind, does it really originate from just that?
Imagine an artist created a painting of a valley filled with sunflowers. Perhaps it is a memory from their childhood, perhaps it is a place they have visited. Or perhaps it is simply a beautiful set of colours they wanted to paint. Maybe they painted it because it reminded them of someone they love with the bright yellow flowers. However, one person may view it and think of their beautiful childhood in the countryside, whilst another may feel a sense of loneliness due to the empty valley. Another may feel inspired by the strength of nature and one may simply see it as a beautiful landscape.
None of these are the ‘correct’ interpretation but it shows how the piece of art is now something completely different to what the artist intended. It is now in the minds of others, who will have their own experiences, memories, beliefs and feelings attached to it.
The Artist and Art May Not Hold the Same Values
It can be tempting to think that if someone created something beautiful, they must have a beautiful mind. We often assume that if someone writes about compassion, they must know what kindness is. If someone paints sacrifice then they must value selflessness. If someone creates moving music they must have a deep understanding of human emotions. However, history can tell us otherwise.
An artist may know how to portray an emotion in their art but not live by it. A writer may write about justice but not treat people fairly. A painter may paint tender scenes but act violently in real life. This does not mean that the artist’s character doesn’t matter but it shows that an artists talent does not equate to their moral character.
Many artists throughout history have created beautiful work but led violent lives. Take Caravaggio, an italian painter. He painted religious pieces which made biblical scenes relatable to everyday human life. In pieces like The Seven Works of Mercy he portrayed compassion in a way that was linked to caring for those in need. His use of realistic figures, dramatic lighting and human expressions helped his religious pieces relate to real life. However, Caravaggio led a violent life and had many issues with the law. In 1606 he killed Ranuccio Tomassoni.
This can be a bit of a confronting fact to learn. The man who painted pieces focused around mercy and human suffering also took someone’s life. However, this doesn’t mean the compassion in his paintings are pointless. It shows that a painting can convey a message that the artist didn’t live by. Perhaps we should evaluate the message in the painting and the actions of the painter separately.
Paul Gauguin is another example. His paintings depicting Tahitian life are still influential today but his history can cause some serious ethical concerns. When looking into his history, it can be seen that he had relationships with young Tahitian companions (aged between 13-15). His journals and paintings include these women but their views aren’t well documented. Much of his history comes from him. Whilst we can analyse his paintings for the colours used, composition and their place in art history we cannot ignore the imbalance of power he lived in during colonial times.
Knowing this information can change how we view his paintings. We may start to question who’s views are being portrayed, who’s voices are being silenced and how much we can actually learn about those in the painting. It is important to realise that just because something has artistic value doesn’t mean we should approve of the artist’s morals.
Is Beautiful Art Created by a Horrible Mind?
This can become even more complex when looking at other artists. Richard Wagner was one of the most influential composers in western classical music history. His compositions are still played and analysed today. However, he also wrote openly anti-semitic pieces including the essay Jewry in Music. His anti-semitism is a key part of his controversial history and there is much debate around how it affected his work.
Whilst his music and prejudice are linked to the same person in history, they do not cancel each other out. Whilst we may feel moved by his musical compositions we don’t have to approve of his beliefs. We should also not try to hide the historical context. It can help us understand how art can become linked to politics and prejudice.
This isn’t to say that we should excuse harmful behaviour due to their talent. Nor should we completely separate every piece of work from the artist. However, it shows that a person can create something with meaning that goes beyond their character.
This can happen in everyday life too. Someone may write a poem to comfort someone who is grieving despite never having gone through the loss themselves. A filmmaker may create a story based around bravery which inspires confidence in someone feeling powerless. A photographer may take a photo of a kind moment which reminds a stranger to be kinder. Whilst the artist may have had one intention, the audience may have found another. Art has an amazing ability to reach people in ways the artist may not have known.
Art Can Have Many Meanings and No One Person Owns All of Them
There is a real philosophical debate around whether we should interpret the meaning of an artwork based on the artist’s intention. Some approaches place importance on what the artist intended whilst others argue that the piece can have meaning beyond what they intended. This can help to explain why two people can view the same painting and have completely different experiences.
An artist may paint a field of sunflowers and say that they painted it because it reminded them of their grandmothers garden. Whilst this is what they believe, a viewer may see it as a symbol of memories if they have recently lost a loved one. A farmer may see the hard work involved in growing a field of sunflowers. A child may see it as a happy yellow landscape. Someone who has never seen a sunflower may simply admire the colours.
There is no need for these meanings to conflict. They come from different lives. The painting doesn’t need to change.
This means we cannot always assume art is based around the artist’s life, mood or reasoning. Whilst the artist creates the piece with a certain form, the audience will have experiences they cannot control. However, there is a limit. The details of the painting, historical context, medium and circumstances can all help us to understand how to interpret it. Art may be open to interpretation but it is better to pay attention, use evidence and consider the context.
Why We Shouldn’t Pretend the Artist Doesn’t Exist
There is a difference between saying the artist and artwork are separate and pretending the artist doesn’t exist. We shouldn’t use the phrase ‘art is separate from the artist’ to avoid conversations about exploitation, discrimination, violence and propaganda. The circumstances of the artwork can be very important. They can show us hidden power structures, influence how we view an image and make us question the ideas.
If a painting portrays someone as beautiful, knowing the relationship between the artist and subject can change how we view the image. If a film was created to promote a political ideology then knowing this is essential to understanding the impact. However, knowing the artist’s history shouldn’t automatically determine every meaning.
We should ask ourselves two questions. What can we learn about the artwork from the artist’s life? And what can the artwork mean to people outside of the artist’s life? Both are worth considering.
We can acknowledge that the creator acted terribly but still analyse the artistic techniques they used. We can admire the composition of a painting without approving of the painter’s character. We can find meaning in a poem without considering the author a moral figure. This asks us to think.
Art Isn’t Proof of Who They Are
Perhaps one of the biggest mistakes we make is assuming art is proof of who someone is. A beautiful poem does not mean the writer is kind. A painting about freedom doesn’t mean the painter cares about others’ freedom. A film about humanity doesn’t guarantee the director treats people humanely.
Art can show an ideal the artist struggles to live by. It can show a truth the artist hasn’t fully realised. It can even hold more meaning to the audience than the artist. Remember the book 1984 by George Orwell? It’s a dystopian novel that portrays the author as someone enlightened and liberal minding. However, his writings also reflected some of the racial and gender biases of his time. While he strongly criticised certain forms of injustice, his work did not always fully represent the experiences of women and colonised people. This makes his legacy interesting: an author can write about equality and justice while still having personal and social blind spots. This is exactly what tells us that art is an entity and not
Perhaps this is why art is so fascinating. The artist may complete a painting, write a book or release a song. They may tell us what inspired them and what they wanted us to feel. However, they cannot control every emotion we feel, memory we have or questions we ask.
A sunflower painting may have been created from a memory but can provide comfort to someone, remind someone of their childhood and remind someone that there is still beauty in the world. The artist may have created the image but the meaning is no longer theirs.
So, Is Art an Entity?
Maybe the question isn’t asking us to choose between the artist and artwork but to realise they aren’t the same. The artist is a human with their own beliefs, limitations, contradictions and decisions. The artwork is a product of this person and enters a world where it can be questioned, related to, disagreed with and given new meaning.
The artist should be held accountable for their actions. The artwork should be analysed for its own value and historical context. The audience should be able to create an informed interpretation.
Perhaps instead of asking if a beautiful piece of work means the creator was a beautiful person we should ask, if someone can create something to teach us about compassion without living by it, does this take away from the value? If a painting can mean a thousand different things to a thousand different people, was it ever meant to mean just one thing?
Maybe art isn’t the identity of the person but an entity. It begins from one person’s imagination but continues to live in the minds of everyone who interacts with it.
Add comment