Imagine being Salinger. You spend your entire life railing against society and trying to get away from it all, only to be hounded by hordes of precocious fanboys for the rest of your days. The irony and futility of it is depressing.
That's a risk than an artist assumes when he or she publishes a work.
In the past 10 years, I have met the director of my favorite film and my favorite musician. I tried to be as respectful of their privacy as possible but still wanted to say hello and tell them how much I appreciated their artistic endeavors. They were both gracious and I tried not to take more than a minute or so of their time.
If you want obscure anonymity, don't publish art. Especially not under your own name.
Well, that's why these celebrities do interviews and other things, so that there's no fandom allure of being the top asshole who can stalk these 'private' celebs. I think if you want to play up a, equally pretentious, attitude of "Oh, I'm off the grid as far as you're concerned," expect someone to make it his life mission to say, "No, you're not."
I personally don't believe you can sell millions of books and bask in that kind of wealth and fame and feel no obligation to pay it back via interviews, columns, workshops, etc. Its something of an anarchism, this whole 'tortured pure and private artist' when historically artists were public personas their whole lives and paid back to the community in a variety of ways. I suspect these old social systems still make sense today, outside of the stalker fanboy argument, and are just basic human decency to give a little back to the community of fans who have enriched you so.
There's a "jackpot lottery" aspect here of producing a best seller then just quitting everything and enjoying being a multi-millionaire for life. It stinks of soulless commercial artists just looking for that big check to cash out. Not sure why I would feel any need to respect those kinds of people. If they, heaven forbid, need to say hi to a fan every decade, I think they'll survive. It's unbelievably entitled to have a "I will not make eye contact with those below my station like fans of my work" attitude. Sorry, no man is an island.
I do write and I can't imagine not having a certain level of engagement with the community.
Also, we're not talking being on TV 24/7, but answering the occasional interview request or email. I really think there's a difference between the 'recluse artiste who can't be bothered' and the 'I don't want to be a celebrity but I'll do a phone interview once in a while.' They're not the same. No one is saying you need to be in a reality TV show if you want to write. I am saying you do need a certain level of engagement and that's a natural part of being an artist. The pretentious "genius auteur who can't stand talking to mere mortals" is some kind sociopathy or ridiculous self-entitlement that doesn't deserve to be respected.
I cannot now find the reference, but sometime in the last six months, an article about the fuss around Elena Ferrante and her civilian identity mentioned Pynchon, saying that quite a few people in the NY publishing world knew who Pynchon was and how to find him. They simply respected his privacy and didn't talk about him.
9 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 22.6 ms ] threadIn the past 10 years, I have met the director of my favorite film and my favorite musician. I tried to be as respectful of their privacy as possible but still wanted to say hello and tell them how much I appreciated their artistic endeavors. They were both gracious and I tried not to take more than a minute or so of their time.
If you want obscure anonymity, don't publish art. Especially not under your own name.
I would imagine that it makes it worse that they meet their rudest and most entitled fans, through a rigorous process of self-selection.
I personally don't believe you can sell millions of books and bask in that kind of wealth and fame and feel no obligation to pay it back via interviews, columns, workshops, etc. Its something of an anarchism, this whole 'tortured pure and private artist' when historically artists were public personas their whole lives and paid back to the community in a variety of ways. I suspect these old social systems still make sense today, outside of the stalker fanboy argument, and are just basic human decency to give a little back to the community of fans who have enriched you so.
There's a "jackpot lottery" aspect here of producing a best seller then just quitting everything and enjoying being a multi-millionaire for life. It stinks of soulless commercial artists just looking for that big check to cash out. Not sure why I would feel any need to respect those kinds of people. If they, heaven forbid, need to say hi to a fan every decade, I think they'll survive. It's unbelievably entitled to have a "I will not make eye contact with those below my station like fans of my work" attitude. Sorry, no man is an island.
Is it hard to believe that some just people just want to write for a living? Striking it rich as an author is kind of an moonshot, an absurd dream.
Would you say to yourself, gee, I'd like to write, but better not because I'd hate all that comes with fame and fortune.
Also, we're not talking being on TV 24/7, but answering the occasional interview request or email. I really think there's a difference between the 'recluse artiste who can't be bothered' and the 'I don't want to be a celebrity but I'll do a phone interview once in a while.' They're not the same. No one is saying you need to be in a reality TV show if you want to write. I am saying you do need a certain level of engagement and that's a natural part of being an artist. The pretentious "genius auteur who can't stand talking to mere mortals" is some kind sociopathy or ridiculous self-entitlement that doesn't deserve to be respected.