So yeah, the revolution is the real answer. But making art for money definitely seems to be a risky proposition (in general, not in all cases, of course).

*Mind numbing day jobs being a necessity in a capitalistic society.

I will add as a corollary that most “fine” art prior to the 19th century isn’t so much “artist’s self-expression” as “the patron’s expression via the artist”, as most large artworks were commissioned. It is misguided to confuse the artwork with the artist, in my view, no matter what century the artist lived in.

Artists do not live outside patriarchy any more than feminists do, and we all have to make a living. Artists, like all human beings, range from reprehensible to truly kind and lovable, and their artwork ranges likewise, yet there is rarely a positive correlation between personality and production. This is true of scientists, programmers, artists, architects, et al.

In sum: I do not believe that respect or admiration for an artwork/idea should EVER automatically convert to respect for the artist/ideator as a human being.

I understand, Yttk, you were not excusing her. I just disagree with the “we all live under the patriarchy” apologism, as while it’s true, we are still actors with all the sentience and compassion necessary to make humane and decent choices.

While Rivers’ other works appeal to you despite his history, others of us may not be interested in making a distinction between the artist and his self-expression (in this case). To us, then, Rivers’ work (as a whole) isn’t “good,” with “good” of course being a subjective assessment. We each have our own criteria for what makes us consider some art good and other art bad.

Finally, I think it’s possible to say something is “good art” without simultaneously asserting that it’s so “good” that it makes the existence of its creator justified. I really like the film “Knife in the Water,” but I’d happily give up the existence of the film if it meant that Polanski couldn’t have committed one (or more, probably) rapes. Same with Yoko Ono; it would be better in the grand scheme of things if “Rape” hadn’t been made. However, if I say that “Cut Piece” is really interesting, that isn’t also an argument for the existence of “Rape.”

That doesn’t mean any person isn’t capable of creating art and participating in a broader definition of ‘culture’. Culture is a word derived from the word ‘cultivate’, and also references the process of transmitting learning about one’s society. Raising the young to know society.

It is not a concept limited to a classist view of ‘humanities’ which is itself limited to the ‘higher’ (gag) consciousness of man‘. I never use the term humanities now, having recognized that oxymoron.

Culture does incorporate female consciousness of oppression and forums like this transmit that knowledge – and is therefore part of our culture. (or counter-culture but still.)

What else could you be saying by ’some of it is good art’? You were just being arsy and picking on yttik again. Sad

yttik, as I may be just your biggest admirer – what books do you read/ what philosophy? I’m thinking about getting into paganism as I’ve thought about it a lot and had experiences that suggest there’s more to life than rationale. I was wondering whether you’re a pagan, what influenced you?

Thank you for defending the pedophile, the rapist, and the murderer, while constantly riding me for just about everything I say.