Appreciate the gift, deplore the package. A boundless capacity for evil seems to be in our dna. Knowing that, perhaps we can do better (no evidence yet).

There's always the risk when you start looking at German philosophers, mind you. I mean without Hegel there almost certainly would never have been a Marx, but Hegel was up there with Kant. Hegel believed that Africa wasn't even part of history and it's hard to be much more dismissive than that. As a maths teacher Wittgenstein beat small children if they didn't understand him, in one case to the extent that a boy was knocked unconscious. Heidegger has been let off the hook for being a Nazi because "everybody had to join" which doesn't explain why he joined in 1933 which was before "everybody had to join" and why some of his lesser known writing is viciously anti-semitic, even arguing in terms of his philosophy that Jews are incapable of being completely human. Nietzsche was just bonkers so that's probably OK.




 

I think about this from time to time as well. I sometimes find that when I've attempted to get over it and continue with the 'art' my enjoyment is still tempered by the knowledge and lessened even though I've logically convinced myself otherwise.

Somewhat relatedly, Nick Cave writes these incredibly thoughtful/moving/funny/interesting responses to letters from fans on his Red Hand Files site, it's a good weekly thing. Anyway this week he's responded to someone asking about old lyrics that are a bit homophobic by today's thinking.
https://www.theredhandfiles.com/do-you-need-to-change-lyrics/

And I read that and I'm like, well that's good for you Nick but you're evidently not sparing much thought for anyone on the receiving end of it here, with this clear annoyance at the current "perpetually pissed off coterie of pearl-clutchers". ANYWAY I don't think that lyric or any others of his are particularly anything to worry about, most of his work is ludicrous caricature and I'm too "normal" to be a target of any of it so it's hard to judge for sure I suppose. I just thought it was interesting at the time and then reminded of it here. "being a *bit of a twat* is a prerequisite of rising to the top of one's field" indeed, at least it helps, I think, there's the occasional exception of course.

 

Yeah, Heidegger's Nazism seems to have been *quite enthusiastic*.

 

>I think about this from time to time as well. I sometimes find that when I've attempted to get over it and continue with the 'art' my enjoyment is still tempered by the knowledge and lessened even though I've logically convinced myself otherwise.

Yeah, that's usually where I end up too.

I’ve also consciously avoided finding out if most bands/authors/etc are on Twitter lest they turn out to be dicks. 

:D

The Schrödinger approach. I should do that - just stop looking into anyone whose work I like.

I shudder a bit whenever I start up a film that has the miramax logo. I think what bothers me most are living artists who manufacture stupid asshole artworks that sell for astronomical prices, and have blockbuster shows, artists like Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst (and maybe Banksy)*. For whatever reason high-visibility artists who made brilliant work** but behaved badly bother me less.

*extending also to best-selling illiterate authors and no-talent pop stars

**specifically using the past tense here.  :-{)

Oh God yeah, that crop of artists are all unmitigated shits.

But maybe they're really nice people?

Maybe.

Particularly vile considering that Hirst boasts that "his own" ideas are stolen.

Yup, absolutely.

Jesus fucking christ.

No doubt after years of being told that he's great and with wheelbarrows full of cash being dumped at his door, he really believes that his magic breath can add value to a pack of pencils.

It's probably a purely business decision: he has to defend his value, lest anyone gets it into their heads that his daft projects aren't worth any more than the cost of the raw materials.

I like that as a position.

With regard to Gill
 
​​​​​​​I think my visceral response to him is more the former - he sometimes used his daughters as models. So the eroticism reflects his own desire. Yuck!

Inherent value is precisely why he made For the Love of God (and why Mark Quinn made Sphinx). So that when the value of their work goes through the late-life and/or post-death slump, there will be works with huge inherent value - and that will help shore up the value of their works with little or no inherent value.

It's essentially, loosely tying the value of their work to platinum/diamond and gold standards.

By the way, I like Hirst's work well enough. I found Away from the Flock and Mother and Child (Divided) deeply affecting. In the flesh, they say something significant about mortality. I like the scalpel blade paintings, too. And of course, he gave the best answer ever to the 'I could have done that' cliche.

And the pencils?

Daft.

I remember, many years ago when I was curator of the Yorkshire Sculpture Park, the Director decided it was time to set out one of our Richard Long Slate circles. The slates were kept stacked under a tarpaulin in our storage area. When we had set out all the slates we had, the circle was a good metre short of what it should be. Further investigation revealed that the Bretton Hall caretaker had discovered them, decided that they must be ordinary slates, not art slates, and had used some to pave his new barbecue area.



I told Pete Murray and he absolutely crapped himself - to the extent that he asked me to phone Long myself. I did, and when I explained what had happened Richard roared with laughter, gave us the phone number of the quarry and told us to order another ton, so we'd have a bit spare in case the caretaker wanted to extend the paving.

That's how a decent artist deals with that sort of event.