Two replies: 1) seeds are one thing, riotous growth quite another; and 2) critiques of public artistic accomplishments by referring to personal behavior is probably unfair and certainly not cogent, I think.
Two replies: 1) seeds are one thing, riotous growth quite another; and 2) critiques of public artistic accomplishments by referring to personal behavior is probably unfair and certainly not cogent, I think.
I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear. I didn’t intend to smear Byron’s artistic accomplishments. They stand as glorious as ever; nevertheless, they are founded on an philosophy of life the inadequacies of which are patent in the man and his life. It does wonders for the art, but degrades the man; we are none of us just artists.
At the risk of repeating, artistic and private life could but need not reflect on each other. Many great artists are terrible people and many great people are terrible artists.
Two replies: 1) seeds are one thing, riotous growth quite another; and 2) critiques of public artistic accomplishments by referring to personal behavior is probably unfair and certainly not cogent, I think.
I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear. I didn’t intend to smear Byron’s artistic accomplishments. They stand as glorious as ever; nevertheless, they are founded on an philosophy of life the inadequacies of which are patent in the man and his life. It does wonders for the art, but degrades the man; we are none of us just artists.
At the risk of repeating, artistic and private life could but need not reflect on each other. Many great artists are terrible people and many great people are terrible artists.
And what does this duality tell you?
Art is one kind of effort, goodness as a human plain and simple quite another.