PDA

View Full Version : Does an artist's identity really matter?


Osceana
06-23-2006, 04:10 PM
I was recently having a conversation with a friend of mine and he posed an interesting question to me. We were in a bar and he was making an ass out of himself because he had a few too many PBRs, so needless to say it wasn't exactly the right venue to explore all the different avenues of thought on the matter.

A few weeks ago i was talking with him and another friend and telling an anecdote about how Phil Spector sent his wife an entire alimony payment (a million dollars or so) completely denominated in nickels. When i told him that they both kind of looked at me like they were lost. They had never heard of Phil Spector.

I was kind of surprised because aside from practically being a household name for every kid with a rudimentary appreciation of rock, these are both people that live and breath rock music.

So, back to the bar, i was talking with him again about it and he told me that he couldn't give a fuck less about who Phil Spector was, or what he did, and he felt similarly about people like Steve Albini, and everyone else- all artists. He asked me why it mattered that this guy did that. I thought him a bit naïve for that. He's all about creating this underground revolution, and he tells me lately that he thinks all music sounds like money. He's one of those people that thinks being on a major label is the end of the world and making massive amounts of money off your art is wrong.

I feel though, as an artist, that art is self-serving. It influences people, and traces of one person's art inevitably show up in another person's art, especially in music. Creating something entirely original is impossible. I mean, you grow up and hear certain things, or you see certain things (even little things like color and water) and you implement them into your art, those things become your pallet, your frame of reference. I've often tried to create new colors in my head, and i can't. Making a new color would require using pre-existing colors, so my mind can't really comprehend that idea.

What are your thoughts though? Do you think it matters that Ernest Hemingway wrote "A Farewell to Arms", or that Thomas Edison created the light bulb? What difference would it make if they were just annonymous creators? What role does their identity play in it? His contingent was that it's an obsession with fame, but i don't buy that.

Narcissistic Nihilist
06-23-2006, 04:26 PM
I think it depends entirely on whether that artist cares.

Never heard of Phil Spector?? Even after his brush with the law?? That is shocking gap of knowledge.

TheImplodingVoice
06-23-2006, 05:20 PM
omf I agree with Danny.

Also this mayor label shit, that's the most idiotic thing I've ever read and I already hate the guy

Osceana
06-23-2006, 06:28 PM
I think it depends entirely on whether that artist cares.

Never heard of Phil Spector?? Even after his brush with the law?? That is shocking gap of knowledge.

I agree on both accounts, although it troubled me a bit that i didn't have a wholly thought-out answer. But i've been thinking about it lately and i'm starting to wonder if it's a deeper psychological issue. I'm wondering if, as people (human beings), our sense of time is affected heavily by our interpersonal relationships. Maybe it's only important for me to know that Phil Spector created the "Wall of Sound" because it gives me a reference to a person, a "place", and a time, as those are all things that precipitate from his identity.

Either way, to not know the author of the "Wall of Sound", and, arguably, the man responsible for the Beatles' break-up, is really appalling.

Ninermike
06-23-2006, 10:39 PM
I think the identity of an artist matters if that identity clashes with the art itself. The more serious the message, the more important I think it'd be for the artist's life to coincide with it. Someone whose work constantly praises family life would be ruined if they turned out to be a philanderer, for instance. In some cases like that, anonymity would benefit them. People could take the work for itself and not have its creator to compare it to.

Jackal
06-27-2006, 10:27 AM
No it doesn't really matter.

Until they become famous.

Phil Spector and Edison could be switched and if they each accomplished the same tasks, it would be the same.

L'egoMan
07-04-2006, 03:45 PM
in some cases it is extremely important to know the artists background and history to understand the art they are making and why they are making it. This however does not neccesarily have to reveal their identity.

Nak Nak
07-04-2006, 10:44 PM
No it doesn't really matter.

Until they become famous.

Phil Spector and Edison could be switched and if they each accomplished the same tasks, it would be the same.
Edison? Fuck Edison. Don't mention them in the same sentence.

Jackal
07-05-2006, 09:21 AM
HEY! Osceana brought him up first.
(weak comeback)

kendra
07-05-2006, 09:53 PM
Sounds like your pal has a problem with success. Maybe he should move to Mongolia.

Satin Shade
07-07-2006, 04:31 PM
Sounds like your pal has a problem with success. Maybe he should move to Mongolia.

Or he can go work at Mongolian Barbecue. I'm sure they don't make very good money there. ;P

But no, your identity probably doesn't matter. I've never really given it much though (see?). The art should probably speak for itself anyway, right?

Jackal
07-07-2006, 07:05 PM
quite right

the artists identity only spoils


I like some of Yoko Ono's work. (not the fucking singing!)