Is it possible to separate the art from the artist?
>>24978063objectively no, subjectively yes
>>24978063I guess, but why would you? Why do you need to artist to be moral/ethical?
>>24978063Yeah. I think that's what Poe wanted in his stories, they're meant to be read on their own without psychoanalysis.
>>24978063yes, and it's frankly retarded not to, but lovecraft specifically didn't do anything wrong as far as i know.
Yeah.Is it possible for anons to separate the art form their obsession with racism?
>>24978063To some extent, yes. A critical thinker can pick apart which ideas to accept and reject, but once illegal activities or personally antagonistic ideas are promoted by the artists, it's hard to justify supporting the artist financially
well how exactly would you salvage this excerpt?
>>24978255https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colleen_HooverWhy would anyone try to salvage such an amerishit subhuman?
>>24978063Yes. Many readers would have gone their whole lives without knowing a single sliver of knowledge about the author if it wasn't for every retarded asscunt who felt the need to spread the information as a way to pat themselves on the back. The man has been dead for almost 90 years. You can leave it alone, let the work speak for itself and quit thinking you need to lead a witch hunt over a long dead man based on the words of retards who just grossly simplify things for their self worth. Look up what Presentism is.
>>24978063If you're interested in deeply analyzing a piece of literature then you will necessarily have to get into the author's personal life and historical context, though I don't believe that should hamper your enjoyment of the text unless it affects you personally.
>>24978063It's more about seperating aesthetic judgements from moral judgements, if you can't appreciate something that you consider aesthetically worthy because you have a moral issue with the author then you're just making a category error
>>24978063Yes, but is it possible to separate the aut from the autist?
Incest is easy to write , but we all know the author loves incest
If you read something utterly racist or horribly outdated in a book, like Plato talking about the four humors or whatever, and you think anything other than "haha, things sure were different 30 years ago," you need to get your head checked.
>>24978307I couldnt care less about his views, but tbf if you name your cat niggerman, it's probably fair to assume he'd be fine with everyone knowing what he thought about non-whites. I don't think he'd hide an easter egg like that for the historians to dig up if he wasn't expecting it to be public knowledge
>>24978855He added the cat in one of his stories and mentioned it many times in his letters everyone who knows him will know about his cat.
>>24978063I dont ever take even the slightest interest in the artist as a human being. The only relevance an artist has to me is in producing art for me to consume, and so my interest in them is purely insofar it helps me consume their art.I really liked a movie once when I was like 16. Someone told me "it's typical Tarantino". So I looked up other films and consumed them as well. So far I liked most of them, and I have some idea of what a Tarantino film is. But if it wasn't for the incessant nerding out of my cousin, I would've been spared knowing about the dude having a foot fetish. Similarly, I know several writers whose writings I tend to like. So when I come across something of theirs, I might read it. But I will never read even so much as their wiki page. I'll read the date of publication, and the place in the colophon. That way I kind of get a feel for what type of environment the work was created in. But again, miss me with that shit about marriages and abusive parents and whatever trauma supposedly caused the art.It's liberating not to know these people. I just like what I like. Imagine dedicating brain power to knowing what colon cleanse this or that painter prefers. Degeneration. No thanks. I barely even discuss what I like with others or why.
No. That's a leftist cope. I don't need to separate anything when most writers I read are based in their own ways
>>24978975you cannot escape your own subjectivity
>>24978855>it's probably fair to assume he'd be fine with everyone knowing what he thought about non-whites.Perhaps, I didn't say he was subtle. But this is the problem right here. You're assuming he has a thing about non whites. His issue was a raving and growing sense of fear and paranoia about everything not British. And I mean BRITISH British, even other parts of the UK were scary to him. He wrote Shadows over Innsmouth because he had WELSH blood. Anything not familiar was a source of terror. Another of his stories was because a neighbor's new fangled Air Conditioner gave him the heebie jeebies. To insinuate all his issues were merely the result of racism, which he was in general step with the beliefs of his era, is grossly inaccurate and an oversimplification.
>>24978063no, that is why nabokov was a pedo, why JK Rowling hates the british middle class and why cthullu is based
We have to separate art from the artist.Louis Ferdinand-Celine was a foam at the mouth anti-semite and fascist but he was a great writer. I don’t think even a Jew would deny this. Knut Hamsun, another Nazi that was a supremely gifted writer.Roman Polanski is a rapist but he makes great films.Salvador Dali was a horrible animal abuser. He would go around beating dogs to death and called it a surrealist act yet who can deny his talent as an artist?Pier Paolo Pasolini was a rabid communist and a great filmmaker. I find it ironic that a gay communist made arguably the best film about Jesus Christ. Go figure.The list is endless. I could go on and on. One could argue if the artist is moral what’s the point? It would hardly make you ponder or question anything.
>>24978063It's the only proper way to read works of literature: “What's any artist, but the dregs of his work? the human shambles that follows it around. What's left of the man when the work's done but a shambles of apology
>>24979020>based>based>based>based>communist fudgepackerOne of these things is not like the others
desperately trying to separate the Kripke from the straw hat
>>24978825Kill yourself, subhuman faggot.
>>24978307His xenophobia is precisely the thing that allowed him to write so brilliantly. Besides, everybody loves watching the subhuman globalist libshit faggots seethe and wiggle trying to fit liking a xenophobic artist, Lovecraft or otherwise, into their filthy stinky subhuman progressive libbitch worldview. By forcing them to do this you either increase their everyday cognitive dissonance, possibly forcing them to munch on even more pills and increasing their suicide chance, or making them fully abandon the artist, thus purifying the air within the fanbase.
>>24979623you sound like a faggot
>>24979643Found a triggered subhuman faggot. Kill yourself, subhuman faggot.
>>24978063Nobody has even established what that means. Most of the time it translates to "Enjoy a piece of art despite it being made by an illiberal person" which isn't separation at all. Just because you're able to enjoy art doesn't mean you've managed to rip the artist out of it.
>>24980135That's because most of the time that's precisely what it is: a cope mechanism for subhuman liberal sheep to be able to function within a society without being forced to outright reject 99.99% of its cultural and philosophical compound like the subhuman liberal worms that they are. It's an act of mimicry, and every normal person should pour the mugs of subhuman liberals into the fact that borderline everything around them has been created by people who they reject.
I used to be friends with this chick that was a big music/record aficionado who owns a record shop who ripped me a new asshole verbally because I said I was an Eric Clapton fan and she acted like I shouldn't like him because of what he did to Pattie Boyd and told me as much.I think about that every time someone uses the term "separate the art from the artist" and laugh.
>>24980423it's no surprise a woman wouldn't get that idea, they're biologically programmed for social cohesion and internal group harmony.
>>24978855He recanted most of his statements later in life
>>24980423Oh..did not know. Still listen to him.
>>24981309Based
>>24980135>Nobody has even established what that meansIn practice doesn't it just mean engaging in more formalist criticism? Not stooping to biographical criticism of a work, "nothing outside the book" type of mindset. "Read this as if you know nothing about the author"
>>24981249>Erm... it's just in their nature! You can't blame them! They can't HELP IT, it's in their DNA!!!Swallow a pack of straight razors.
>>24978063Yes, unless you're a leftist.
>>24981580It's like you can't even mention Lovecraft at all without someone rushing to try and defend themselves by attacking him.
Why are people such pussies about racism these days?Even saying the word nigger regardless of context is something worse than being a rapist or child abused
>>24978063No and I don't see why you should. All art is a created expression by a specific author, to dismiss the author is to dismiss the art.
>>24983732To assume you know the author or what he truly meant is your own ego. You have no idea what's going on in his head any more than any one here's. You're only pushing your own values and opinions on long dead people.
