tortured soul of the artist

[articul8]

(thinking in light of Amy Winehouse and all the stuff about other victims of art/celebrity) anyone read any decent accounts of the rise of the artist as tortured, self-destructive individual? I mean the whole reputation of Van Gogh is heavily invested in this stuff, as is Munch's The Scream. Have a dim memory that Goethe's Sorrows of Young Werther has a major influence on it?

Sure that it must have some relation to commodification and the mass market - a romantic response to capitalist reification etc. I can feel a blog post coming on. But any tips on studies of this would be appreciated.

 

[Cheesypoof]

Dont know of any studies but this thread is quite a topic. I think that 'tortured artists' have likely existed since the beginning of time, and there was no socio-political 'rise' that started it. That would be like saying that artists and musicians were never tortured until a certain 'time.'

the 'torturedness' of artists comes from a flaw within, and this has to do with things in their soul, rubberstamped in their DNA from childhood - absolutely nothing to do with capitalism or whatever you are getting at.

 

[Santino]

Lots of great artists weren't tortured. And, perhaps more importantly, most tortured people aren't great artists.

 

[Cheesypoof]

Lots of great artists weren't tortured. And, perhaps more importantly, most tortured people aren't great artists.

yes, no one said that. The OP talks about the 'rise' of the artist as this tortured, self-destructive individual. I dont think there was a 'time' when it happened. Among artists, there would have been the same % of 'tortured' ones hundreds of years ago as there are now.

 

[Santino]

Is there a statistical analysis somewhere?

 

[revol68]

Dont know of any studies but this thread is quite a topic. I think that 'tortured artists' have likely existed since the beginning of time, and there was no socio-political 'rise' that started it. That would be like saying that artists and musicians were never tortured until a certain 'time.'

the 'torturedness' of artists comes from a flaw within, and this has to do with things in their soul, rubberstamped in their DNA from childhood - absolutely nothing to do with capitalism or whatever you are getting at.

fuck me you talk some utter fucking shite!

 

[killer b]

i'm afraid a8 is right cheesy - the tortured artist is a fairly recent innovation. i believe the phenomenon was first observed in the mid 19th century, and was still rarely sighted until the first world war.

artists from earlier years were happy, stoic or dead.

 

[Belushi]

The notion of the 'artist' itself is a relatively recent development emerging in the Renaissance.

 

[Cheesypoof]

artists from earlier years were happy, stoic or dead.

thats quite a statement !

 

[Cheesypoof]

fuck me you talk some utter fucking shite!

perhaps you would like to answer the OP and provide some studies...

 

[killer b]

thats quite a statement !

or maybe not. perhaps they had their misery rubberstamped on their DNA.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There clearly were tortured artists before the 19th century. Carravaggio for one. Goya for another.

 

[DotCommunist]

i'm afraid a8 is right cheesy - the tortured artist is a fairly recent innovation. i believe the phenomenon was first observed in the mid 19th century, and was still rarely sighted until the first world war.

artists from earlier years were happy, stoic or dead.

byron. Kin fucking and smack.

 

[revol68]

cheesepoof this is not the forum you are looking for, take your homespun pap to nobbin n sobbin.

 

[Cheesypoof]

or maybe not. perhaps they had their misery rubberstamped on their DNA.

i said that i think there were the same % of artists that were of the 'tortured' variety, hundreds of years ago, as those that werent. which is perfectly reasonable, but perhaps not quite as documented.

 

[killer b]

byron. Kin fucking and smack.

sounds pretty cheerful to me.

 

[articul8]

There clearly were tortured artists before the 19th century. Carravaggio for one. Goya for another.

Ok but (and it's a genuine question - not my area of expertise) how celebrated were people like Carravaggio in their own time? Could it be that their work was recuperated and promoted by a romantic generation of critics who wanted to back-project this "troubled genius" image into prior art history?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Carravaggio was successful in his time. Of course being an artist in those times was something a bit different from now. It was a trade, one with a long apprenticeship as you learned how to make paint, etc.

 

[articul8]

But was his success related to the spectacle of his self-destruction? I think that might be the critical difference?

 

[killer b]

But was his success related to the spectacle of his self-destruction? I think that might be the critical difference?

i think you're right. certainly as far as painting goes, the cult of the tortured artist began much later - i'd suggest mid to late 19th century. the focus of art changed radically around then (i presume as a result of photography), and it became much more about the artist than it had been before.

 

[articul8]

I can't believe there aren't important studies of this already written? Presumably interest in craft/aura of the specific work takes a back seat to individual personality of the audience when mass reproduction becomes possible?

 

[killer b]

certainly mass reproduction is a big part of it, at least as far as musicians are concerned - pop stars tortured or otherwise didn't exist before a way to record them was developed. not sure if that's the case with visual artists though - when did lithographic printing become of sufficient quality for a reproduction of a painting to be worthwhile?

 

[articul8]

Yes not too sure - there MUST be accounts of this out there surely?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But was his success related to the spectacle of his self-destruction? I think that might be the critical difference?

No. I suppose in the absence of a mass media, only a very small number of people will ever have actually known him. Artists wouldn't have been quite the same kind of public figure then as they are now. Certain kinds of fame rely on modern media, don't they?

 

[Santino]

You're not going to get anywhere without some kind of evidence base. What is the phenomenon that you are trying to describe? Not just the idea in your head, what does the 'rise of the tortured artist' actually consist of? Biographies? Art history conferences?

 

[phildwyer]

Romantıcısm. Werther ın partıcular.

 

[phildwyer]

Then agaın, the Romantıcs read theır concept of the artıst back ınto theır predecessors, especıally Mılton.

 

[articul8]

yes exactly - but what accounts for the rise of this dimension of romanticism? Presumably a reaction to capitalist reification and the standardisation of mass produced commodities? And which historians of romanticism have anything illuminating to say on it?

 

[articul8]

You're not going to get anywhere without some kind of evidence base. What is the phenomenon that you are trying to describe? Not just the idea in your head, what does the 'rise of the tortured artist' actually consist of? Biographies? Art history conferences?

I'm talking about a cultural/epistemic shift in the way that the category of the artist is freighted with being paradigmatic of human individuality at its most expressive - the notion of "the artist" that we are habituated into taking for some kind of ahistorical category is actually born with the romantics and back-projected onto art historical/literary narratives.

 

[butchersapron]

Not being funny but isn't that just bog-standard art history/history of art nowadays? Rejection of Industrial revolution--> historical (re)construction of a tradition based on that rejection i.e subjectivity, nature, the individual --> sale of that tradition and then commodification via developing mass media and cultural markets etc. I'd expect that idea of the production of art/artist to be found in any critical history. There's a great summary of this perspective in Art in its time: theories and practices of modern aesthetics by Paul Mattick jr (yes, son of that Paul Mattick).