Do You Want People to Separate You From Your Art?

I promised I'd be back and I am. Finally. It got long, so my apologies! Hmm. This is quite thought-provoking, Paul. Do I want readers to separate me from my writing? I'd rather everyone have the flexibility of mind to question whether a poem is based on my life because I think all writers draw inspiration from multiple sources. For me, no one piece is based 1:1 on my real life. There is always more than one thing on my mind when writing, especially poetry. I'll start with one source, but it will morph as I go and become a motif, single metaphor, or perhaps just the title, and the rest of the piece will flow like free association or draw from solid sources that I’ve looked up. It just depends. As long as the end piece actually communicates something (emotion, thought, a mix of the two), then the source of inspiration should come secondary, imo. Maybe I'm the one who does more of this separating. I'm less than satisfied with my writing, especially my poetry, if it feels like a simple explanation of real life. To me, that's journaling, not art. If I posted my journal/diary on here, I'd have no issue with people concluding things about me from that writing. But the medium of poetry, much like visual art, is meant to be open for interpretation. I learned in college to never assume the poet is the speaker of a poem. That blew my mind, actually, as it’s the natural assumption readers make witih poetry. But speakers can change, and change often. "I" can be quite a lot of things: the voice of my unborn child, the wind, God, the vindictive part of myself, the brutally honest part of myself, a body part, an enemy, the list goes on. And if the speaker is a part of myself, is it the ENTIRETY of myself? Impossible. Art is pieces. Now, with creative nonfiction, it's different. I try to read a CNF piece with a BIT of separation so that I don't miss points that transcend the author themselves; but I'll definitely not pretend that the entire piece is figurative, even if it could read that way. But then that just adds to the fun of reading that genre; you don’t know how much is real. You have to do some degree of abstraction, meeting the piece with your own baggage to complete the act of artistic expression. It’s not just the artist; it’s you too. So to answer the question: Separate me as much as you can from my writing. I'll tell you if it's a diary entry. Now, as to famous creatives who have distasteful associations, whether true, false, or overblown, I err on the side of separation. It’s not for I to judge. Of course, do I want to be inside the mind of a murderer, rapist, or abuser via their ART? No! That isn't moral judgement, though; more self-protection. I would be open to reading a confessional piece if that person underwent a spiritual transformation. I’d even read their art after that. Hell, I’d read their work from before the transformation in order to do comparisons to the after. But without knowledge of such a change, art made by someone who was actively committing brutal, twisted, evil acts would not be a good idea to consume, imo. Perhaps a psychologist would find it interesting, and I wouldn’t disagree…but then that isn’t engaging with it as ART, is it? I really dislike the notion of boycotting artists because of disagreements with their lifestyles. Like, Tobias Wolff is apparently quite a mean person. His writing, though, is incredible. Do I boycott him because he's hurt a lot of feelings or perhaps done some bad things in relationships?(I don't actually know all he's supposed to have done.) My answer is this: Artists in general are a miserable bunch. So, no. I think it’s silly to judge someone’s personal life by not engaging with their art, especially if you’ve already found yourself moved by it. I actually believe it’s can be quite rare to be truly moved by art. So what if the person who made it sucks? Everyone sucks; literally, everyone. But I can still take advice, find beauty in, and want to relate to my fellow sucky humans. On this mortal plane, the fallen plane, I can’t see how art is supposed to be made by perfect people. Is it even art at that point? Maybe in heaven, the answer will be yes. But not here. I will say that the type of media matters. If you can avoid direct confrontation with the artist, if there is already in-built separation (think instrumental music, writing, visual art), then it’s much easier to mentally separate their work from their personal lives. But with media like acting, singing, and other kinds of performances where the person is the product too, it’s a lot harder to do that mental movement. I struggle a lot more with actors and singers. There are movies I can no longer watch because of certain actors. There are singers I can’t stand to listen to anymore. Clearly, there is nuance. It’s not a simple answer. But for myself, I’d like to avoid a hard stance since the kind of writing matters a lot with how much I expect people to separate me from my work. Overall, I think a plastic way of thinking is best. Can you play with multiple ideas at once while reading my stuff? Unless it’s a nonfiction piece, don’t be rigid. My poem probably isn’t about me. And if it is, you probably aren’t gonna decode me that well.

Oh, how this made me look deep within for the truth.... Take Woody Allen...ok, even if he had been Mr. Squeaky Clean, I just don't think he's remotely funny or talented...so mute point But Kevin Spacey...clearly one of the most talented actors ever! Although his personal character might be flawed/disgusting/etc., God is his judge just like God judges me for my flawed and disgusting sinful nature. I learned a long time ago (from the Bible) what the condition of ALL humans is: poor, pitiful, wretched, blind, and naked. Doesn't mean we aren't all talented or skilled, though. Some of the most amazing drawings/sketches/art comes out of prisons...we are all prisoners, really (Hotel California?) BTW, glad you got possible and impossible all washed up...lol and that this got Top Story :)

I know of those times when our minds wander, and we begin to think of our next project and/or make an assessment. The shower is the perfect place, hahaha. I don't know why but it works, so let it. The things you described doesn't make me want to stop enjoying the things you write about. No one can claim to be perfect, and if they do, they're lying. The fact that you can own up mishaps, says to me, you are conscious. The best type of consciousness where actions bother you enough that you have to address them. It's all part of the process. Healing. Moving forward. Letting go of the past. Keep doing what you do, Paul. Keep churning out those amazing stories and heartfelt poems. They are a form of release. Congrats, buddy!

Congrates! on your Top Story! Loved your story! I’m also sharing some of my own on my page. Would love if you checked them out when you have a moment.

Thought provoking Paul and I admire your direct honesty and the shower scene made me chuckle. This is not really a question I can answer. Caravaggio is separated from his art by time. I am joined to mine of necessity. I imagine my art will not be as well known as Caravaggio’s in centuries to come. And unlike JKR I can’t imagine anyone saying I used to love RGT’s work but stopped reading him when he said/did …. Congrats on the TS

I would never want to be separated from my art. I know my stuff lately has been a lot about past trauma... And maybe that gets annoying to some people but it's what I went through. What made me worse or better. If it's annoying, or if its "victim mentality" to some, then so be it. No one can write about our personal experiences except us. We can relate but that experience is strictly ours. The mess and all. I don't want to follow anyone who claims perfection. Our favorite artists are flawed with things we likely don't understand or agree with and that's ok. People don't have to agree on everything to get along. I don't think a person can be deplorable as a whole... Their actions at any given time can be not so great... But it doesn't define a whole person. Like Shrek said, onions have layers... So do ogres. Or people. 🤣🤣 I want all of it. The good, the bad, the horrible, and the magnificent. Art is about feelings and we need all of the feelings represented. That's what makes it great. If all art was just happiness and butterflies, it might get boring. That's just my opinion. 🤗

Paul, I appreciate your honesty and vulnerability and for that reason take your art for its value of authenticity and lessons learned. What I can't stand is hypocrisy, when the artist preaches one thing and is a complete opposite of that in real life. And even with that, they still can produce great work, perhaps as a way of making up for their rot (don't want to use the word sublimation here). Like I still can appreciate Caravaggio's paintings, Woody Allen's movies and Michael Jackson's music, even though I know what they did. Great reflections and well deserving a TS, Paul!

Wooohooooo congratulations on your Leaderboard placement! 🎉💖🎊🎉💖🎊

Your art is a reflection of who you are whether you hide your face and name or show it all. My deepest darkest secrets are also ugly, will they one day come out in my work? I'm sure they will, and the words will be beside my face, because they are mine. I don't pass judgment, I know what I've done, I know we all do things that other people would shun us for, but they are no better. I was thinking about this in bed this morning, my parents church, that I was raised in, has certain families that judge you and actually turn their heads the other way if they know you have sinned, and they are taught not to judge, so that is their sin. I am no christian, but "those who have not sinned, cast the first stone." Anyway.... There is power in owning up to who you are, what you've done, and the struggles you've had and intertwining them into your art. It shows in the quality of your work how connected you are to it, I would say, not just your poems, which are raw truth. But I even see it in your stories, a truth intertwined in the fiction. Anyway... I feel like this comment is long enough. Amazing piece, congrats on top story and leaderboard placement! Well deserved!

So here's the thing about "separating artist from our art"... No matter how much distance you put between them, they're still connected. Even if a highly emotional/ erotic piece is "purely conjecture" or "Fiction", it still says a lot about how our brains work. There's a reason I don't let people I know in real life read my books... They'll know too much about me and have judgements. Even though all my work is fiction and technically has nothing to do with my real life. Anyway, where I was really going with this is that there's absolutely nothing wrong with the sultriness in your work lately!! I'll just give the nod that pain and pleasure share space in our brain and it's correlates well with what you've been through lately. Rather than feel the pain some of us lean into the pleasure side of that coin. 🤷‍♀️

Congrats on your bonus for this piece! Bastids ovahlooked me.

Oh wows, what a gem! Raw authenticity and bared soul for an 'eyes glued to the page' read. Well done Top Story-an Paul!

Thanks for the thought-provoking read. In general, I have a hard time when artists, or those in the public eye, are expected to be "perfect." If we're supposed to be flawless to be appreciated, none of us will be appreciated. Having said that, I'm not a relativist. I have limits. Not enough time to get into them here, so maybe you've "provoked" an article out of me!

Back to say congratulations on your Top Story! 🎉💖🎊🎉💖🎊

All racists and pedophiles can fuck off. I have no interest in them or their art. Everyone else's art ... bring it on. Real is real. (As long as what they create is in fact art. Otherwise, they can naff off too.) Life is hard, express that pain, but, please, keep it feckin' interesting. 🤣✌️❤️ This was interesting! 🥰 You got me swearing and everything! 🤣

I think this is a significant question, one that artists at other times may not have had to answer. Some writers and musicians had notorious reputations. Rogues, gamblers, and drunkards. Creativity, high libido, and addiction tend to go together. There are exceptions, and then there's the stereotype. Today it's worse because of the 24 hour news cycle and paparazzi. Celebs can't go to the beach or catch a smoke outside a hotel or their own home without being spotted. People literally go through their trash - I remember that happening to Pam Anderson and Tommy Lee when they were an item with a huge sex tape - just to determine what they smoke, what they eat, or any other little details that can alternately humanize or demonize them. People do put artists on pedestals, but they mix up being great creators with great humans. The two examples I like to reference are John Lennon and Frank Sinatra. People think of Lennon, and they think of "Imagine" and all of his talk of peace and whatever. Love, love, love. So they think of him as a saint. These people then either ignore the other side of him, or they don't know about it. How he left his wife for Yoko and largely abandoned his first son Julian, as well. Paul wrote "Hey Jude" to make Julian feel better about that. And, the woman John left Yoko for, May Pang, worked with Paul to get him to pay attention to Julian again, because it just wasn't right. Overall, between that aspect, and John physically and psychologically abusing Yoko while he was on a years-long bender, are in direct contrast to saintly behavior. But he was an excellent songwriter and musician who did clean up and improve his behavior. Sinatra is often singled out as over-rated, violent, and a friend of mobsters, perhaps a mobster himself. I've heard him called racist simply because so many people he knew were, or because it's assumed anyone of his era and ethnic heritage would be. However, he continually worked with black performers, and championed their fair treatment and pay in clubs, by labels, and in films. People like Sammy Davis Jr., Quincy Jones, and Ella Fitzgerald. When Sammy married a white woman, which was highly controversial at the time, Frank stood by him, something Sammy never forgot. What Frank didn't tolerate was drug use, or disloyalty, which is a bit hypocritical given how much he smoked, drank, and cheated. As you say, they're humans. We all are. Where I draw the line is when artists get in the way of their art. Sure, I'll watch "Chinatown" because it's an incredible film that isn't about Nicholson buggering a 14 year old, despite what Polanski may have done at the time. But when a writer, actor, or musician just beats the same drum about their bullshit all the time, that's when I may have to walk away.

I describe myself as a glorious flawed mess and I hope that shows in my work too. So don’t separate my art from me. But there are artists I can’t forgive. It is a constant dialogue about where to draw that line, so thank you for writing this and reminding me to keep having that conversation.

ahh Paul, always making us think and rethink and then question ourselves before probably settling on calling you crazy ;) But, I think this is one of those rare things that is truly in the eye of the beholder. Do I think if you like Harry Potter you're a piece of shit? not at all, I love Harry Potter! I also think if you don't like Harry Potter due to its author being a vocal launderer of atrocious philosophies then good for you and I think that's a respectable moral stance. I know nuance in the internet age is impossible.... foolish fromm

Impressive display of vulnerability here. And it's hard, because every so often I encounter a piece of art I really like only to discover something truly reprehensible about the artist. For example, Eric Clapton delivering a racist diatribe to a packed concert hall or Anthony Keidis assaulting minors. Not that Clapton was that hard to give up, but the Chili Peppers have some very emotionally resonant songs for me. And I think I draw the line somewhere around "Should I continue to help them feel secure in their actions and words by actively supporting them?" Particularly funding them. Do I want to see more wanton racism or sexual assault because these artists feel untouchable? No. But those are more extreme examples of harm, like you said. There are levels to this. And Clapton expressing his opinion only meets the criteria for me because he did it to a packed concert hall and specifically told the foreigners in the crowd to leave the country because they weren't wanted. That kind of brazen public pronouncement only emboldens others to do the same. Or worse.

A question that has long plagued many of us. Appreciation of the art over the individual personality. I am mixed, and not 100% across the board when I act. Some I still watch, listen or read while others I know I shall knowlingly never participate with again. Why? I don't have an answer that is available for a proper resonse. SIde not I like that you added humour to this article it adds that human touch that no Ai could. (First: wash the sack and crack. Essential.)

There are many forms of art represented in the list you started your piece with, Paul. Many of those artists worked as hard to project a specific persona as they did at creating their art. The question, how do we parse our response to their art knowing what we know about their lives is not easily answered. I have on occasion applied a litmus test to determine whether I will consume one’s art or not. I will likely never read Atlas Shrugged for example. And although the Tesla is a beautiful car I would never buy one, even if I could afford it. But I was deeply influenced by Jung and like Percy Shelley, TS Elliot and Ezra Pound I am deeply obsessed with Dante. I have watched Woody Allen movies both before and after many revolting revelations about him. In other words, I am conflicted. Like you, Paul, I try to reflect honestly in my art my own fallen nature for lack of better terminology. I am deeply flawed, and deeply ashamed of it. Is that why I consume art, even knowing what I know? I don’t think so. I do not believe I have any noble or esoteric reason for doing so. I consume it because I enjoy it, even while struggling to justify it, even if only to myself.

Well-wrought, Paul! I think it depends somewhat on the artist, and the kind of public image they try to convey, and each case is to be judged individually. Everybody gets a fair trial, I guess. I think where it's hardest to separate the art from the artist is in cases where the artist represents some moral stance throughout their career. Bill Cosby and Jimmy Saville come to mind, alleged rapists who respectively represented family values and charity.

I know that people know my work anyway, which makes me easy to dismiss for Vocal judges and moderators, but I am proud of what I do, and I know most of it is excellent, and that is what my audience and friends think, and that is what really matters. Some excellent things to ponder Paul

When I grow up, I want to be as brave as you. But while you proudly write under your true name, it was just yesterday I googled myself and was relieved to find that my Vocal page does not pop up when I search my full name. For now, I'm more comfortable being honest in my writing because there is a separation between Vocal and my real life. I'm all to aware of possible ramifications that could effect my job and relationships. When it comes to others' work, I think we can appreciate their contribution while also acknowledging their sins. There is good and evil in us all. The good one does cannot erase the bad so it seems unfair to erase the good done because of the bad.

I appreciate the raw honesty with which you discuss personal failings. It’s refreshing to see a writer insist on truthfulness in both life and work without fear of judgment.