What’s wrong with Bob Dylan’s biographers?
newrepublic.com
newrepublic.com
i think it's a good metaphor for "art-history" studies. I could never understand people writing about art, analyzing some painting texture, style of brush strokes, author intent, historical context or whatnot, or digging into artist biography or their development; not in order to learn how to make art, mastering the craft, but for the sole sake of analysis, critique or "art appreciation".
Art is just there, a thing in itself, you either get it or not, either it talks to you, personally, or not, and you can create one too, you may have more or less talent but making art is not a prerogative of "artists" as some kind of special breed.
It's kinda like talking a whole lot about coding style and programmer bios instead of just writing code and building things.
You don't get more out of art if you know its context?
For example, it's interesting to know that much of art, starting with Impressionism was a response to photography (https://kiamaartgallery.wordpress.com/tag/influence-of-photo...). Previously, art was judged based on how realistic it was. But when photography came around, painting could not compete. So artists had to come up with new methods and goals. Some wanted to make the viewer experience a feeling, even if that meant not literally painting truth.
Another example: the Surrealists used Freud's work on free association, dreams, and the unconscious in their own work.
Or this poster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Klinger-Johannisthal-1908.... While the characters are interesting, there's more to it than that. It was originally designed for a 1908 air show in Germany. That's only five years after the Wright brothers' first flight! Airplanes were still brand new. Doesn't that impact how you see the characters here?
I certainly agree that anyone can create art, but I don't believe that the only thing worth doing with art is either creating it or blindly consuming it. To bring it back to your programming example, don't you get more out of Babbage's Difference Engine when you find out that it was built in the 1990s -- and worked?
Appreciation of art itself can be carried out without reference to Artist biography and the history of art.
Kind of like when you focus on details but then just can’t zoom out to see the whole complex beast.
Dylan was always against reduction of his works to e.g. civil rights causes and all that , like they teach in schools now, it’s a forced perspective, even if has some truth in it, it’s like putting his song in a cage in a “zoo” and sticking an easily digestible label on it for people too busy or too lazy to think for themselves. I’m all for unschooling.
"His most recent book is Hater: On the Virtues of Utter Disagreeability."
It seems to me sometimes like nearly all journalism has become "this thing, which you might like or think has some redeeming features, is completely awful" with as haughty a tone as possible. It's the best way to manipulate people who don't respond to Taboola.
I like cars. I got a book on the history of V-12s in general. Some people might not be interested in that.
I got a book once about Michelangelo's life without any particular interest in viewing his art. Somewhere I lost interest in watching sports, but I still have (comparatively) some interest in reading about it. If it's good writing.
I don't watch movies any more, but will read about them, or read scripts sometimes.
My only opinion about Dylan is that I have never heard a cover of his song that doesn't sound better than him.
What I like about Dylan is that his lyrics seem to try to avoid cliches rather than over use them so he uncovers truths that go against the social memetic way of thinking.