Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 3w

Like, I’m a big fan of Joy Division, I’ve got both of their studio albums on vinyl, I’ve read their bassist’s memoir about the band, and all that. That being said, I’m not gonna act like Peter Hook is my best friend and dedicate all my time to talking about him, especially about shit other than the music he’s made.

1

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 3w

if you “love” a stranger you’ve never met, for any reason, you need to sit back and reflect. that’s not normal or healthy. it’s also a phenomenon that’s literally only existed for the last hundred years or so. this isn’t “human nature” lol. it’s a sign of cultural decline.

2

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 3w

there’s a lot of songs, albums, and bands that I enjoy listening to. I literally couldn’t not give less of a fuck about the people making that music. I don’t know when this became abnormal…

4

Anonymous OP 3w

I think loving an artist in the abstract for their work is not remotely the same as loving a person you actually know concretely, and it’s intellectually dishonest to treat them as the same thing. I love David Bowie, not necessarily the man, but the artist. It made me sad when he died, not because I knew him personally, but because he produced art that had a profound impact on me. I think that’s a completely normal and okay way to feel about an artist.

7

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 3w

what you’re describing is a very new social phenomenon primarily created by the music/tv/film industry to sell you “the artist” and not just “the art”. you felt sad when a stranger you’ve never met or talked to died? buddy, that’s not human nature, that’s capitalism working the way it’s intended.

1

Anonymous OP 3w

See, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the performing arts if you genuinely believe this. The performer is integral to performance art, they create a new piece every time they get onstage, without the artist you have nothing. When a painter dies, he’s survived by his work, when a performer dies it means the world will never again see their performance, and that is the tragedy of losing a great performer. It is 100% valid to feel sadness when a great performer can no longer perform.

2

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 3w

I subscribe to Barthes’ death of the artist theory, which is widely accepted in the field of literary and media criticism - the author/artist “dies” the moment they create the art. ONLY the art survives because ONLY the art is relevant. I get where you’re coming from but I’m not just coming out of left field with my own hare-brained theories.

1

Anonymous OP 3w

See but there’s a reason that concept is called “death of the author” and not “death of the actor” because when it comes to performance art, that’s a stupid take. You write a book, yeah that book’s gonna outlast you, but if you’re a performer then every piece lasts only as long as you’re performing it, and each performance is a new piece even if you’re performing the same act, the same song, the same play. The author does not become the book, but the performer themself becomes the piece.

2

Anonymous #2 3w

Only people I’d have strong feelings about is someone doing significant work to help others. That deserves getting excited over but the best people do most of their work in private anyway

4

Anonymous OP 3w

If what you were saying were true for the performance arts, then listening to an album and going to a concert would be equally valuable experiences, but they’re very obviously not. That’s because music is a performance art form at its heart, inextricably tied to the performer, we just have the luxury of living in a time period where we have recordings so concerts aren’t the ONLY way to consume it. I’m enjoying the conversation though it’s taking me back to my Philosophy of Art class days lol

1

Anonymous OP 3w

If you truly dont care why are u typing entire paragraphs here

1