Salvador Dali, “proud owner of one of the world's pointiest moustaches” (From), was as well known for his bizarre lifestyle as he was for his art. Whether this distraction from his painted works is appropriate or not will likely be debated ad infinitum.
Dali brings up a good question. Is it reasonable, appropriate, or effective to consider biographical information about an artist in the process of interpreting their work? Is the artist’s life part of his body of work or should works of art stand on their own?
This is the first aesthesis discussion and I’ll post apt responses to aesthesis on 31-May-2004.
Responses should be clear and concise (less than 1000 words) and may include examples of specific art works. You can submit them by e-mailing them to me or by responding to this entry.
An artist draws his work from the same bucket where he gets his life. The shape of his life, while interesting to students, may not be much in the way of proving his work. The work, on the other hand, often validates the life. In short, we may be able to understand an artist's work apart from his life; but we cannot understand his life apart from his work.
Posted by: henry mitchell at June 16, 2004 06:21 AMThat's a good way of putting it.
What about the ambiguous elements in a given work (particularly in the works of folks like Dali)? They may or may not be decipherable from the works themselves, or the same iconic symbol may change in meaning over the life of the artist.
To understand these problem areas would it be appropriate to draw conclusions based on what is known about the artist’s life? Or should those difficulties be maintained? (I’m not trying to box you into two options here so if you have another solution please feel free to give it.
In a conversation with a friend, I may interpret her words in light of all I have learned about her life and actions over the years of our friendship. This can lead to invaluable insights. It can also lead to frightful misunderstandings.
Posted by: henry mitchell at June 17, 2004 06:57 AMThis is a somewhat pragmatic argument, but here goes...
Don't you think that judging a friend's words based on what you know of their life would be more likely to lead to insights rather than misunderstandings?
Further, could it be that the misunderstanding was caused by what is unknown about the friend's life rather than by what is known? Isn't it equally possible that the same confusion would result if you knew nothing of their life?
I think we are in basic agreement. But let's not be afraid of ambiguous elements. Only fundamentalists (aesthetic & otherwise) are afraid of ambiguity, which can often be at least as enlightening as the obvious. And let's not be afraid to let the work speak for itself, indepentant of the artist's original intent. The life of the work continues after the artist ceases to lay hands upon it. It will grow and change in the minds of its viewers, who add their own experiences to the encounter, until layers of meaning have been acquired by the work which the artist may never have intended nor foreseen. Once the artist submits the work to public view, it is no longer the artist who speaks to the world, but the work singing its own song.
The vision embodied in the work, after all, did not originate with the artist. Artists are not creators so much as midwives.