I think we have a kind of obsession with people who are simultaneously talented and are, or seem to be, tortured, self-destructive souls. The fact that they have this dark chaotic side to them seems to increase our excitement and interest and, in some cases, somehow convince us that they are even more talented than they really are. Pete Doherty is a prime example. They can have big egos, sure, and maybe charisma (Pete Doherty?!) and it can be this that gets our interest and sells their talent to us. How many talented people with genius are out there who do produce outstanding work but we don't know about them because they are otherwise boring and not good self-publicists?
I don't know whether fame and notoriety have become more important than they used to be, probably not, but in our modern media-driven society, everything is faster and more short-term. There has to always be something new to put in the press-release, a new story with which to sell the goods, keep the money coming in and the media interested. It doesn't have to be a good thing. No such thing as bad publicity.
You can try to draw a distinction between 'true' talented artists and celebrities but it is a woolly distinction at best. There can obviously be an overlap and isn't talent and 'art', like beauty, in the eye of the beholder? A lot of 'true' artists were infamous and/or celebrities in their own time. Or is it about high-brow versus 'low-brow'?
Maybe it is about how people choose to market themselves? If an artist markets themselves as an elitist, high-brow, ivory tower, abstraction, then we have no ?right? to judge what they do in their private lives but if a celebrity is on tv and is a role model and/or is misrepresenting themselves, we do? Presenters on Blue Peter for example.
We also love dead artists. Not just the ones who died of natural causes, whose work goes up in value after they have died, but ?artists? like Kurt Cobain, James Dean, Buddy Holly, Marilyn Monroe, etc., who either took their own lives or died in other dodgy circumstances. I am not saying they were not talented but we have a kind of morbid fascination in them, particularly some people.
There are also artists who are famous too but who don?t ?do? interviews, or only high-brow interviews analysing their work but not their private lives. This seems to be the way to go to achieve ?true? artist status, provided your work can speak for itself.
There is an element of having to devote oneself to one's 'oeuvre'. And this could mean that one is either bonkers or an egotist/selfish git. Unless you are lucky and get 'discovered' early, it would take a lot of determination or conviction or ego or madness, or a mixture, to continue indefinitely on a track that may lead to nowhere and/or involves loneliness, difficulty, rejection, poverty, etc., in the hope that it might one day pay off. Others in this thread have written about this more succinctly.
But the tortured artist is a cliche and there are also plenty of people who are contented, well-off and well-connected and always were before and after they also became successful authors or artists or whatever. It is just the most extreme examples of either talent and/or madness/egotism that we tend to hear most about, and who come to embody our concept of ?tortured artist? because it is their stories which make the best copy.
You could say that it is either illogical or childish to be put off the work of a great artist just because they themselves are insane or weird or a shit in real life. That their work should stand separate from who they are. I might agree with that. I might make a conscious decision that I can appreciate their work without feeling that my enjoyment of it is in any way tainted by what I know about them but, at the same time, I think that my appreciation would in some way be coloured by the other knowledge. Depending on what we know about them, some people might feel further drawn to an artist or might be put off. Human nature. Some people are more objective or subjective than others.
For those of us who are influenced, a big part of it depends on what sort of thing it is that we know about them and the other big part depends on what sort of person we are. Zippi says: 'maybe its people who torture themselves rather than others i have no problems admiring'. I can sympathise with that view (although I wouldn't say I admire them for torturing themselves) and I'm sure a lot of people feel the same. Some people might be particularly disgusted by some sort of sexual misdemeanour, others by political views.
Rambled a lot there. sorry.
I still think that news of Frank Bough?s sadomasochism fetish was a bit disturbing and unexpected (I?m so naïve and innocent! ) but no doubt Madamez would say ?bof? to that.