When Artist = Asshole
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c3a7f/c3a7f37aa801211a3a9864d8dd6d6e89ee06ec16" alt=""
And so, what does Maynard have to report? Guess what: Salinger is strange. He eats really weird food and is grumpy. The sexual relationship was odd and didn't work out. She was clingy and he got bored. Depending on who you are, reading her account could make you admit that interpersonally he is a messed up guy or that you think she is a bitch who should have never told the story or that Salinger is a pedophile whose work is worth shit because of that fact.
It is this last take I find the most interesting. If we find out an artist is an asshole, does that change the worth of his or her art?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/16af8/16af81c1b9c3f97f892ee5eebb7aa32cb57d59a8" alt=""
Picasso was a notorious asshole -- although in Repo Man it is claimed that no one has ever called Picasso an asshole -- I find that hard to believe -- I mean look at that face...he was clearly smackable. Word is he was terrible to the woman in his life and not all that fun at parties. And yet, one of, if not the most important painter of the 20th century. Personally, when I look at Picasso's work I don't think about who he was at home.
And yet -- then there is Woody Allen. From what I have
heard, his relationship with Mia Farrow was unconventional to say the least, but even in that context, his decision to make Farrow's daughter his lover and then wife is very creepy. I have loved Allen's films, but I must admit I have gone to see very little of his work since that story broke. Why? I think he really baffled me in a way I find hard to shake when I see his work. Is it because his movies seem so autobiographical? Is it because Allen so often turns to the camera in order to have an intimate conversation with the viewer that I feel compelled to yell back, "Yuck! What the hell have you been thinking, you kook?!"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f3a79/f3a79f7cc80b1dec831ddadf5f633ab3a5d27bf3" alt=""
If we sign on to be fans, do we sign a waver to personal behavior?
Here is another take on what it means to be a Salinger fan. After publishing At Home in the World, Maynard put her letters from Salinger up for auction at Christies. Because Salinger had sued over his letters becoming public in any way, Maynard anticipated that there would be a call for an explanation from his fans. Maynard noted that she had been very careful not to quote the letters directly in her book, but having used them for inspiration in writing her memoir said they no longer served a purpose for her and so she had decided to sell them in order to pay for her children's education. Surprising to some (including me), the letters went for a relatively low price -- and the new owner stated that he had bought the letters with the sole purpose of returning them to Salinger. What other writer, actor, artist, politician would inspire such loyalty in this day and age? What asshole for that matter?
8 Comments:
Artists always seem weird to me. I think as fans we're entitled to complain about personal. It even mirrors the inflated sense of importance usually found in our heroes.
I agree that we can say or think what ever we want -- but I wonder if it effects the value of that person's work...And what if the work has had a profound effect on us -- as great art or heroic acts are supposed to do? Should that effect be struck null and void if that individual does something we find distasteful? Maybe it should be called the Lewinski Effect...
I wouldn't mind having that connundrum myself.
I try not to look into the lives of artists: it does ruin it for me. I like their work to be "pure."
Once I start to learn about their lives, then they become celebraties to me and I am usually disgusted or bored. You can't be obsessed without being an asshole to those nearest and dearest to you. I grieve for their children who had no choice originally, but not really for anyone else.
Jay:To mamnge living with JD -- or to have people judge your work based on your personal life? In both cases I think you are looking for star power girl!
Nessa: Then you understand my caution. I must admit though, I was also interested to see what kind of writer she had turned out to be. My verdict it: Feh.
Value as described how? Value to us, probably, although I still enjoy Woody Allen movies.
I guess the ability that allows them to speak their mind in their art is the same thing that prevents them from controlling their behavior in their personal lives.
What an excellent investigation. I believe that you need to separate the personal lives from the work. Now that I am 50 I cannot imagine being involved with a 'girl'...even though Groucho Marx said that you are only as old as the woman you feel.
I suppose that those involved in May/December arrangements must face a huge number of obstacles and spend an inordinate amount of time justifying their actions...who is to say if it is unnatural? I suspect that on our evolutionary journey this sort of thing was probably considered the zenith of reproductive success. Afterall we reach our natural state of reproduction in our early teens and we were never designed to live as long as we do now.
My daughters are both in their early 20s and I see their friends as children caught unaware of all the baggage that accompanies making adult decisions without the benefit of experience...especially in relationships.
I think Picasso was a complete egomaniacal asshole...the thing about celebrity is that it envelopes it's subject and justifying your actions is a walk in the park when you are the centre of the universe.
Great post.
Post a Comment
<< Home