#macross-82

4. do you think its ok to separate the artist from the art?

Oh boy. My opinion on this point changes a lot.  In an ask I answered a few days ago, I talked about how I think it’s important to view art as a marriage between authorial intent and viewer experience, rather than one dominating the other. But I guess in some regards, it depends on the what kind of art you’re talking about. 

I’m an architecture student (I guess you could argue that architecture is merely design, and not art, but whatever), so it’s pretty easy for me to say “yes! In fact, it’s imperative to separate art from the artist!” Architecture is a field that’s suffered from excessive emphasis on the authorship and rhetorical intent. I think that today, most architects would agree that user experience is light years more important that authorial intent. Just a couple months ago, during a review for a studio course, I spent a lot of time during my project presentation talking about all the different ways in which I honored the historical-modern blend of San Francisco’s SoMa district, (where my project was sited), particularly in regards to the facade design. One of the reviewers told me I was much too focused on the rhetoric behind my design, and not focused enough on the tangible, programmatic consequences of my design decisions. He was absolutely right! Looking back through history, this was an especially common problem in early modernist architecture. A famous example would be Philip Johnson's Glass House.

If you measure it’s artistic “success” based solely on Johnson’s intent, it’s a masterpiece! ( At this point, I paused to go have an early dinner. During this time, I had quite a bit to drink, so if there’s any perceived shift of sorts at this point, that’s why! Sorry! ) It showcases both Johnson’s acute awareness of the prevailing aesthetic sensibilities of the time and his deep knowledge of architectural history, (it’s rife with Classical references). But if you choose to completely separate the art from the artist and judge it’s merit solely on the finished product . . . maybe it isn’t so great.  Perhaps it still can be regarded as an “aesthetic triumph,” but it’s got it’s problems. It’s a glass house in the middle of fucking Connecticut! What the fuck were you thinking, Philip Johnson! Thank god that now it’s only a museum and not a place that people actually have to live! No amount of “perfect geometry” is going to make this a comfortable place to inhabit. In fact, if I remember correctly, a lot the heavy-duty program for this project is actually underground, where climate control is much more manageable. Architecture may be an extreme example of why user experience could be considered more important than authorial intent— since the user experience of architecture, which has largely to do with bodily comfort, is (seemingly) more easily quantifiable and (perhaps) less subjective than the user experience of, say, a painting— but it’s extremity makes it the most salient. 

My understanding is that historically, in more scholarly circles, this question has had a lot to do with the “death of the author,” concerning whether or not an audience should consider authorial intent when consuming art. But it seems like, these days, especially on the internet, this question is usually meant to ask “is it okay to like art created by someone ‘problematic?’” To which my answer is 🤷‍♀️ I mean, I think Roman Polanski’s a horrible person but I also think Rosemary's Baby is a great movie. I wouldn’t call that separating the art from the artist, I would call that recognizing the merits of the film and the hard work of all of the decent people who collaborated on it, while also recognizing it was written and directed by a vile person. It’s important to regard everything and everyone with a critical eye. So while I don’t think you should ever totally disregard who produced a work of art and why, I also don’t think your opinion of an artist should determine whether or not you decide to consume their work, nor should it preclude you from recognizing it’s merits. And vice versa. Just because you love an artist doesn’t mean you should consume their art with a blind eye to all of the art’s/all of the artist’s shortcomings. (That being said, I’m not saying the reputation of the artist doesn’t/shouldn’t affect the user experience. If you know that you won’t be able to sit through a movie knowing it was written and directed by a child rapist, then by all means, don’t watch Rosemary’s Baby). In short, my opinion is: engage with any kind of art your interested in, but always engage with it critically. And if you’re worried about contributing to the wealth of someone you view as loathsome, you can get around that. In this day and age— for better or for worse— it’s pretty easy to consume art while making sure the artist doesn’t see a profit. Don’t want to influence Amazon’s decision to renew their licencing of a Roman Polanski movie, but still interested in what all the hype around Rosemary’s Baby is about? Then stream it illegally online! Mia Farrow’s great in it— I think it’s worth a watch! 

21. what’s a conspiracy you believe in?

21. what’s a conspiracy you believe in?

okay so legitimately i believe in ghosts (my parents lived in a haunted apartment so i get it from them) and aliens, JOKINGLY i believe the mascot of my college is using the school as a vessel for world domination

25. what’s something you can’t stop buying?

a category of items i call “smell good stuff” so candles, incense sticks, room sprays, air fresheners, essential oils for my essential oil diffuser. i’m just trying to cover the weed smell to be very very honest

36. what do you think you’d be arrested for?

vienna: do you enjoy classic literature?

you bet! i’m literally studying italian literature at university and classics are my one true love!  <3

rome: ancient rome or ancient greece?

rome! rome! rome!

copenhagen: how many languages can you speak?

two! italian is my first language and i’ve studied english for like a long time! i tried to learn french last year but i failed lol