some weird furry thing that's trying to make the best of a bad situation, just like anybody


Nim
@Nim
Sorry! This post has been deleted by its original author.

Webster
@Webster

an over deployment of this phrase i think. when i was taught death of the author in college the discussion emphasized that an audience has just as much license as a creator to interpret a body of work. that was the separation. the ethics of consuming, endorsing, or materially supporting that work wasn't really even brought up.


wraywolf
@wraywolf

want to say there are many works of art im more fond of because the artist is a neurotic reprobate of some sort, or some kind of self-defeating reactionary oroborus, or otherwise unwell or hateful or simply lost to consensus reality in some respect.


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @Nim's post:

i'm getting replies to this responding to shit i didn't say. i didn't speak of ethics of consumption. i didn't say that consumption is virtuous. i didnt say i dont want art from outcasts or weirdos. i didnt say i want art that is sanitized and clean. where are yall getting that shit from

i said that my experience is affected based on what i know of the person who made it and i will have better access to it if its someone that i think is cool. thats it

some of my favourite bands now are artists that on the purely musical aspect didnt click with me immediately but what i knew of them made me sympathize with them so i gave the music more chances than i otherwise would have, and some of these are my favourite artists now that it grew on me. On the flipside for example an artist whose appeal is personal thoughtful honesty and then turns out to be a fucking creep or racist or whatever makes the music feel significantly worse imo cause then you get that extra context of what that personality is

in reply to @Webster's post:

i'm not even concerned with ethics here. what i mean is that most of my favourite bands and albums are my favourite precisely because in addition to the good music, there are admirable attitudes of its creators expressed through it. If that was missing then my experience would be less compelling

sure, i guess what i'm saying is i think people who interpret "separate the art from the artist" to mean "view the art as if it exists in a vacuum and has no creator" are probably interpreting that phrase differently from how Barthes intended.

the irony of pointing that out is not lost on me lmao