I had a long discussion with my uncle yesterday about this. Is the art greater than the artist? Should we neglect personal flaws and evils of an artist and appreciate his/her art?
The discussion/debate started with V. S. Naipaul. As you all know, he is a Nobel laureate for literature. I highly admire his writing skills and have read many of his works. The point of discussion was his confessions in his biography The World Is What It Is, about abusing his wife. He says "I think that consumed her. I think she had all the relapses and everything after that. She suffered. It could be said that I killed her. It could be said. I feel a little bit that way".
His wife Patricia, was suffering from cancer. Naipaul confesses of inflicting mental cruelty on her. Naipaul blatantly boasted of extra-marital affairs and visiting prostitutes in one of his interviews and this humiliation and stress caused severe downfall of Patricia's health.
The question is, 'Is it moral to continue to admire the author once you know how horrible his personal life is?'
I took the stand of placing art higher than an individual. I argued that I would still continue to read his work and admire him because of his literary works and not personal life.
But the crimes that he has committed towards an innocent, suffering woman are really despicable. I wish he were as good a person as a writer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
debatable issue..But I guess majority of the artists are bad human beings in their personal lives...Michael jackson, SAlman khan, Bill clinton(Considering politics and running your country smoothly as an art!!!) ,Osho are to name few...They are maestro and ace in their respective areas and arts but when it comes to their personal lives, they are dodgy devils..But I dont mind that...tht is their personal life and I am only interested in their art !!! So i m fine with that...Art is indeed greater than the artist ....
I can't appreciate an artist's work, if I despise him as a person. But yes, unfortunately, art has always been much larger than the artist.
No Way...... Art is never greater than the Artist.....its not the art who has created an artist..... its the Artist who has created an art....
Artist is always greater than the Art...... Art can never create artists......
ASAV PATEL (asav4u@gmail.com)
i m sorry.... but i want to comment more..... so i m posting 2nd comment.....
u r saying that Love is greater than the Lover....NO.... Actually... its Lover who loves. Lover is always greater than Love...
So Artist is greater than Art....
second thing.... u have asked that is it moral to continue to admire author after considering his personal life?...
Ofcourse yes.... the answer is simply yes....
who told u to search about his personal life?
2nd thing.... if u want to grade the author 0 grade than give this 0 grade for his personal life. u should award 0 marks to his personal life..... but u cant award 0 grade to his creativity bcoz of his personal life....
ASAV PATEL (asav4u@gmail.com)
@Asav
Sachin(artist) has not invented or created cricket(art), but because of cricket(art), we know sachin(artist)...We wont forget cricket or we wont stop watching it if sachin retires...A.R. Rahman/Michael jackson hv not created Music, ,music has created them...we wont stop listening to pop music if michael jackson stops singing or we wont stop listening to HIndi music songs if AR Rahman quits...So art has been much larger and greater than the artist !!
@ Soham....
ummm....welll...can't argue for this argument....
really wider angle of thinking than me......
i have never think in this way...that sachin is a great Cricketer (artist) but not a greater than Cricket...(art)
ASAV PATEL (asav4u@gmail.com)
Post a Comment