Artwork versus Artist

[dreamer...]

Before you read anything else, take a quick look at this link:
http://www.snyderstreasures.net/images/ ... rPairF.jpg

Surely you'll agree that it's a nice drawing. Now who, you're probably wondering, drew those lovely flowers?
























Answer:

Hidden stuff:

Adolf Hitler.

Now, learning that completely changed my view on the artwork. It was like the whole drawing became sinister and untouchable.

My question to you is: what is the relationship between the artwork and the artist? Does the artist's status affect the artwork's status? Should it? Or is the artist completely separate from the artwork? Can one love a piece of artwork but hate the artist?

[Hanny's Old Account]

Hm, interesting.

[fragile-esteem]

doesn't change anything. I knew Hitler had been rejected from art school, so he must have done some art work, which is obv still good.

[Abandoning Ship]

Heh, yeah, I could tell it'd be by Hitler. He was actually a pretty good artist.

[Rebelnerd]

if only they'd let him in...

[dreamer...]

fragile-esteem Wrote:doesn't change anything. I knew Hitler had been rejected from art school, so he must have done some art work, which is obv still good.

I agree that the art is still good regardless of who created it. But I'm not so sure about the "doesn't change anything" part. I've noticed with music that fans will often hero-worship the musicians whose music they love. In this case, the artist isn't detached from the art...listeners seem to see the music and the musicians as the same entity. But if you try to see Hitler and the flowers as one and the same...well...it doesn't exactly work.

Maybe what I'm trying to say is:
The artist's identity says absolutely nothing about the artwork. But the artwork says a great deal about the artist's identity.

Just a thought, I'm not entirely sure what I think.

[youvebeenthunderstruck]

Rebelnerd Wrote:if only they'd let him in...

The owners of the art school, as we know, were Jewish.

[thewake]

Hitler also liked Mickey Mouse and drew little Mickey Mouse doodles sometimes. He was a good artist.
I'd like to own some.

[Darthmat]

I like the drawing. It's purty.

[Mogul]

Also, you might find it shocking that the cute, cuddly Volkswagen Beetle front part was designed by none other than... yes, Adolf Hitler. More shocking is that it became one best selling car of all times.

Too lazy to write down my opinion but I agree with dreamer. As beautiful as the flowers look, it's somewhat disturbing to learn that they were drawn by Hitler, so are appreciation declines, because art is subjectively interpreted.

[thewake]

Awesome. I want one even more now.

[Freak]

Quote:what is the relationship between the artwork and the artist?

For any real artist, their artwork is their baby, so to speak.

Artwork does say a lot about the artist.

Hitler was a baby: inferiority complex, but loved children and animals. If you watch non-biased videos, you'll see him kissing and hugging his many pets, and his nieces and nephews, etc.

The only reason you'd disbelieve Hitler drew some flowers or landscapes is because of all the biased information in 95% documentaries. The psychotic, cruel, evil man that killed millions of people. Pfft.

Stalin killed twice as many people as Hitler and he gets shit for recognition.

Hitler didn't get accepted because he was a shitty artist. His pieces are messy and have disgusting color schemes.

[fragile-esteem]

dreamer... Wrote:But I'm not so sure about the "doesn't change anything" part. I've noticed with music that fans will often hero-worship the musicians whose music they love.

BUT... I love some song and have no idea who sung them and I HATE HATE HATE Manic Street Preachers but my favourite song is by them

Freak Wrote:Stalin killed twice as many people as Hitler and he gets shit for recognition.

... Stalin did no recognition get because he was leading a communist state... duh! You only get recognition within state if you are doing shit like that.

[dreamer...]

Freak Wrote:For any real artist, their artwork is their baby, so to speak.

Good point, people do seem to treasure their artwork as if it were their own child. The art's kind of like its own living being- created and nourished by the artist.

Freak Wrote:If you watch non-biased videos, you'll see him kissing and hugging his many pets, and his nieces and nephews, etc.

No doubt. Even Hitler was a human being.

However, I'm gonna take back what I said before:

dreamer... Wrote:The artist's identity says absolutely nothing about the artwork. But the artwork says a great deal about the artist's identity.

The artist's background can be a big help in interpreting a piece of artwork. But the artist's morality, whether he's a "good" or "bad" person, has nothing to do with whether the art is "good" or "bad." The artist's goodness doesn't influence the artwork's goodness, but the artist's identity can help to explain the artwork.

Another question: does the art have a single meaning (intended by the artist), though some people misinterpret it? Or does it have a million different meanings for a million different people, none of which is less valid than the others? Do the artist's intentions even matter?

[Darthmat]

Freak Wrote:The only reason you'd disbelieve Hitler drew some flowers or landscapes is because of all the biased information in 95% documentaries. The psychotic, cruel, evil man that killed millions of people. Pfft.

Oh, of course. Hitler didn't have a single evil bone in his body.

Quote:Stalin killed twice as many people as Hitler and he gets shit for recognition.

That's just because what Hitler did was more global, and more directed to groups of people rather then just Germans.

[Freak]

Quote:... Stalin did no recognition get because he was leading a communist state... duh! You only get recognition within state if you are doing shit like that.

......whah? 0-o

Quote:Oh, of course. Hitler didn't have a single evil bone in his body.

Taking original text out of context is the bastard-child of the Hangman's Argument. =D

No one wants to go into color and line theory?

[Darthmat]

Freak Wrote:

Darthmat Wrote:Oh, of course. Hitler didn't have a single evil bone in his body.

Taking original text out of context is the bastard-child of the Hangman's Argument. =D

[dreamer...]

Feel free to actually answer the questions.

Quote:what is the relationship between the artwork and the artist? Does the artist's status affect the artwork's status? Should it? Or is the artist completely separate from the artwork? Can one love a piece of artwork but hate the artist?

Quote:does the art have a single meaning (intended by the artist), though some people misinterpret it? Or does it have a million different meanings for a million different people, none of which is less valid than the others? Do the artist's intentions even matter?

[cooltoonist]

I hope this artwork was drawn before his tyranny bursted out. o_o
Or so speak now that I beginning to be skeptic towards information given about Hitler after reading some book that said Hilter was actually a nice guy, did some poetry, or something like that and couldn't see the sight of someone killed so he got someone else to do it (or something like that. Need to do some research...)

Artwork does sometime reflect the artist. Artwork is pretty much as close to the artist's heart. Like stories since authors write mostly based on their journey of life.

[Freak]

We did answer the questions. If you want a simplified version: There is a connection between the artist and their art.

There are always two interpretations of art: those of the artist, and those of the viewer. The question of whose opinion is more valid is purely subjective.

[Ahab]

I used to like the artist before the artwork but now I find wikipedia to be a bunch of bullshit. I much prefer to read the works of the author beforehand or study their music extensively before I can say whether their character values and musical values are the same.

[Thotwater]

Lots of artists are insane. Still surprised me, though.

[mudkip liek]

I agree with fragile-esteem. It doesn't change anything.

Just because Hitler is considered "evil" and "psychotic" nowadays, doesn't make me hate the drawing or change my view on it in any way. He might be evil to a lot of people, but to some others he's a genius.

"My question to you is: what is the relationship between the artwork and the artist?"
Sometimes, only the mere fact that the artist CREATED the artwork is the only connection to such a "relationship". Other times, the art is a reflection of the artist's feelings and/or something they are trying/want to express.

"Does the artist's status affect the artwork's status?"
No.

"Should it?"
No.

"Or is the artist completely separate from the artwork?"
There are always exceptions.

"Can one love a piece of artwork but hate the artist?"
Sure thing. Though I can't say I hate Hitler, I don't know him and he never personally affected me in any way. But I can't say I like him either....after what he's done.

Same goes for...say, Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, though I'm not sure what that has to do with anything discussed in here.

[returnal]

Hannyness Wrote:Hm, interesting.

Very.

Who the artist is should not control the status of the art. It is the art itself.

[Dreamer567]

A beautiful work of art is a beautiful work of art regardless of the creator. But looking at this picture and then knowing who the creator is makes me feel a sort of pity. Art expresses one's soul and this picture is lovely. It makes me wonder just what kind of person Hitler really was before the thoughts that sparked what he did invaded his mind. It makes me mourn for innocence. It makes me wonder what really happened to the person who created this picture that turned him into what he is known as today.

[classclown]

i always new hitler did art. but i never saw what he did. i like it, anyways i think art reflects the artist/ creator.

and hitler wasnt all bad no one is.

[AWOL]

No it doesn't. I'm into drawing stick figure comics and if I drew a romance as opposed to my regular violent killing, what would people think, "Oh, the art has changed" or "Oh, the artist has changed". I'd hope it would be the former.

Sides, I think Hitler's a nice guy who got kicked in the balls one too many times.

[spookycloud]

I actually guessed it would be Hitler lol, I'm not sure why, maybe I've just been reading too many forums where people have pulled the Hitler card.

Sometimes a flower is just a flower, it's not necessarily a symbol of innocence.

You can pluck flowers from the ground as if they were weeds, the blind insect makes love to the flowerbed and dies in the first freeze.

My history teacher told us Hitler really loved his mother and come to think of it, the artwork does suit the cover of a mother's day card, as ironic as the cause for celebration.

[Colin]

The art doesn't change meaning because of the artist that drew it. The only thing that happens to me is that my view of the artist changes. Before hand, all I really knew/cared about was that Hitler was a douche, but now I know he's an artist as well. Sure, it doesn't forgive the fact that he killed millions of people, but it does change my perspective on what kind of a person he really was.

[IllusoryDeath]

T'is an interesting OP....