Separating the art from the Artist

I find myself contemplating a question that seems to appear every so often, "Can we separate the artist from the art?" I watched a documentary this week on Picasso and Michael Jackson is playing on the Bose. I have plans to see the movie that is out in the theaters now of Jackson's last show he was about to embark on before his death. When Michael Jackson died suddenly I did not weep; I did not even feel that bad. My first reaction was astonishment that their could be so much adulation for a man who was if not guilty of pederasty, certainly took advantage of his position of power to take advantage of some children.

Michael Jackson had more fame than was good for him at a young age. This fact among others does not excuse behavior; it just explains it. We are a society driven by the fantasy of fame and fortune, yet those who achieve that goal often fail on the basic humanity issues. Both Jackson and Picasso were geniuses in their artistic vehicle.

I have been a huge fan of Picasso's work, while acknowledging the conflict between the creative force of such an artist and his treatment of the women in his life. Was he a misogamist? From everything I have read and seen I think he was at best a quintessential selfish egotistical artist. The bottom line is the work needs to be able to stand up on its own. Any historical facts about an artist's life add a different dimension to experiencing the work, bringing it into cultural and political context.

We cannot ignore the behavior of any person, regardless of their creative genius. It seems that we need to take it all in in life: good, bad, ugly and beautiful. On that note I hope to enjoy the music of Jackson that made me jump up and dance in childhood while staying clear on the score of the fully complicated human being he was. And for Picasso, he will always be at the top of my list of all time great visual artists. Who the others are will have to wait for another post.