life as art
i read recently that the one who did this best was perhaps pierce bryce shelly.
i think that there is a wonderful richness to be had when the whole life is examined. but to be fair to the art itself, i think that examining the works alone is important as well. the art is possibly the only deliberate, finished entity in someone's laundry list of behaviors, reactions and mistakes, and i think that it's important for the audience to be able to separate the person from the work.
i guess the idea is the difference between the artist's personal and public life (um, obviously ...). what i mean tho is that the artwork often should be looked at separately, as it represents what the artist meant to be his statement of himself. the whole thing with kafka and the guy (forgetting his name right now) who published all of his work after he died. i mean, it's great that we have the work, but at what point do we violate the artist's intentions by delving too deep?