DO YOU THINK THAT AN ARTIST'S LIFE DEFINES HIS/HER ART?

Some artists make art that is about themselves. Obviously, for those artists, their lives do define their art. But current thinking seems to be that, in all cases, you can figure out the "meaning of art" by figuring out the artist. I think that's way too easy. I actually started reading (and ended up throwing in the trash) a biography of Picasso where the author stated with authority that Picasso's genius was born when his parents praised his toilet-training output. I am not making that up. In our society we are so taken with the idea of "self-expression" that we tend to confuse it with art.

I am not even sure if understanding the art (much less the artist) is necessary in order to experience the ineffable sensation that comes when you look at a trulygreat work. For example, if I stare at Piero della Francesca's Senigallia Madonna I get weak in the knees and am overwhelmed with the sense that there is an order to the universe that just moments ago was beyond my perception. If I stare at Kasimir Malevich's The Black Square I get weak in the knees in exactly the same way. Pablo Picasso's Portrait of Marie-Therese Walter . . . same experience.

It doesn't matter whether I believe in the virgin birth or not. I don't even have to be Christian to have the experience. It doesn't matter whether I agree with Malevich's theories on suprematism or even know what they are. I have heard that Picasso was disagreeable to every woman he ever slept with and had a very messy private life. Who cares? The important thing is the transcendent universal experience brought about by the work of art itself.