![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reading along
So I am still reading this AS Byatt book. (I pick it up. I put it down. I read three books at once so it takes awhile) There is a serious theme of how far does one put up with someone's art/talent when there is a part of them that is deeply unpleasant or awful. It is that age old question or quest of separating the artist's personal life from their work.
There is a character in the book that I think is partly inspired by this rather notorious artist/designer named Eric Gill. A few years ago I was at my inlaws one Christmas and one evening before dinner the television was on and I found myself watching this program about this village in Sussex where Eric Gill had lived and created a sort of artist's colony/commune at one point (like way back in the early part of the 20th century) He was a really original artist. He created typefaces, he was a sculptor and he did prints and all manner of things. He was part of the whole Arts & Crafts movement which was very much about truth in material and had kind of a romanticized notion about nature, ancient ideas and it was also meshed with socialist ideas at times. In some ways these people were the original hippies.
As for Gill his work was provocative, soulful and bewildering. You can't help but look at his work and let it sit in your head awhile. But then there is his private life. To put it plainly he was one fucked up piece of shit. He sexually abused his children well into adulthood, engaged in incest with his sister, "experimented" on his dog and liked to expose himself to people. "oh look...there's my cock." What is more is he recorded what he did in great detail in private diaries.
His work and personality has been the subject of a number of articles. How one can reconcile the two. For some the truth about his life ruined the experience of the art -which I can understand. Sometimes the subtext can overwhelm the image.
Byatt has a real knack for showing the reader that people are complicated messy creatures.
There is a character in the book that I think is partly inspired by this rather notorious artist/designer named Eric Gill. A few years ago I was at my inlaws one Christmas and one evening before dinner the television was on and I found myself watching this program about this village in Sussex where Eric Gill had lived and created a sort of artist's colony/commune at one point (like way back in the early part of the 20th century) He was a really original artist. He created typefaces, he was a sculptor and he did prints and all manner of things. He was part of the whole Arts & Crafts movement which was very much about truth in material and had kind of a romanticized notion about nature, ancient ideas and it was also meshed with socialist ideas at times. In some ways these people were the original hippies.
As for Gill his work was provocative, soulful and bewildering. You can't help but look at his work and let it sit in your head awhile. But then there is his private life. To put it plainly he was one fucked up piece of shit. He sexually abused his children well into adulthood, engaged in incest with his sister, "experimented" on his dog and liked to expose himself to people. "oh look...there's my cock." What is more is he recorded what he did in great detail in private diaries.
His work and personality has been the subject of a number of articles. How one can reconcile the two. For some the truth about his life ruined the experience of the art -which I can understand. Sometimes the subtext can overwhelm the image.
Byatt has a real knack for showing the reader that people are complicated messy creatures.
no subject
I feel like with Nin, she was able to take what occurred and kind of take ownership of things where as Gill's prints are the abuser having control. Does that make sense?
I feel like you might find The Children's Book really interesting as a piece of fiction because of the complexities of everyone's lives (especially in regards to the sexual side of things) and really not much changes under the sun. hee.
no subject
And yeah, Nin does not equal Gill. It's looking through the opposite end of the lens there. And it's true, she took ownership of it, she seemed to have some level of pride in the exploring the forbidden nature of it as an adult, where as his kids had no say and who knows where they are with any of it now. I hope his success at least afforded them free therapy for life because I bet they could use it.