nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (08/19/85)
> From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) >> [Me:] Marcel, does this mean that a great artist isn't great if they >> go unrecognized, and thus have little influence on others? Hogwash! >> Total and complete! > So how would you know that artist was great if he/she was so > unrecognized? I have a mind of my own, don't I? If I have experienced the art of an unrecognized (or recognized) artist I can decide for myself whether they are great without listening to stupid critics or silly historians. If, on the other hand, I've never experienced any of the art of a great unrecognized artist, then I wouldn't know that they are great. But that doesn't mean they aren't! > Implied in the phrase "great artist" is recognition, even if it comes > belatedly, long after the artist's time. Oh baloney. Recognition is often just a matter of style and fads and luck. None of these have anything to do with the intrinsic quality of art. Vincent Van Gogh was a great artist. He certainly wasn't recognized while he was alive. Does that mean he wasn't a great artist while he was alive? He only became a great artist after he died and received recognition? If his paintings had all been stored in a warehouse shortly after his death, and the warehouse had burned down and no one had ever rediscovered his paintings, and he had gone forever unknown and unrecognized would he have been any less of a great artist? Of course not!!!! He still would have been just as great an artist. How could anyone claim that whether or not Van Gogh was a great artist hinged on the trivial fact of whether or not a warehouse burned down? "You may disappear, you're not forgotten here And I will say to you, I will do what I can do" Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA)
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (08/22/85)
> I have a mind of my own, don't I? If I have experienced the art of an > unrecognized (or recognized) artist I can decide for myself whether they > are great without listening to stupid critics or silly historians. > > If, on the other hand, I've never experienced any of the art of a great > unrecognized artist, then I wouldn't know that they are great. But that > doesn't mean they aren't! This is becoming a philosophical debate. Yes, a great artist that no one has never heard of is still a great artist. But since judging art is necessarily subjective, calling someone great implies familiarity with the work (if one is honest.) So a great artist who is totally unknown is a contradiction (emphasize totally; I am not talking about someone with a small, dedicated circle of admirers, since such an artist is recognized within that circle, which in turns forms the basis for expanding popularity of said artist.) So although your statement is true in principle, without some absolute mechanism for evaluating art, it is untestable in practicce. Now someone YOU have never heard of, but whose work is reasonably documented, is something else.Then you are talking about *your* recognizing artistic work, which does not of change its intrinsic worth (however you measure that,) only its relative worth with your system of art appreciation (which is different for everybody) Your Van Gogh example is a good case in point. You *already know* his work, so saying that he would have been just as great is meaningless. If no one had heard of him, he would not have the influence on other painters that he has. I have already told you that in my opinion, the most "objective" measure of artistic worth we have is the degree of influence on others (insufficient though that measurement may be, the only other is the purely subjective "I think so, therefore it is," that Rosen and others are so intent on stamping out :-) So I believe we agree in general, but disagree on the specifics. That's fine with me Marcel Simon
nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (09/02/85)
> [From Marcel Simon:] > This is becoming a philosophical debate. Yes, a great artist that no > one has never heard of is still a great artist. But since judging art > is necessarily subjective, calling someone great implies familiarity > with the work (if one is honest.) So a great artist who is totally > unknown is a contradiction I don't think it's a contradiction. In my opinion, if Van Gogh had lived alone on Mars, and not a single other human beinbg had seen his work, he would have still been a great artist. Of course, if that were the case, I wouldn't being saying now that he was a great artist because I would have never seen any of his paintings... But in my opionion, a great artist is any artist who I would call great if I had the opportunity of experiencing their art. > (emphasize totally; I am not talking about someone with a small, > dedicated circle of admirers, since such an artist is recognized > within that circle, which in turns forms the basis for expanding > popularity of said artist.) I'm beg to differ -- I totally disagree with and object to the notion that popularity has anything at all to do with how great an artist is. > So although your statement is true in principle, without some absolute > mechanism for evaluating art, it is untestable in practicce. You are correct. It is untestable in practice. But who cares? (I don't...) I don't much care about practicality. Should we have MiniArt to tell us who is a great artist and who isn't? That would be practical, wouldn't it? > Now someone YOU have never heard of, but whose work is reasonably > documented, is something else.Then you are talking about *your* > recognizing artistic work, which does not of change its intrinsic > worth (however you measure that,) only its relative worth with your > system of art appreciation (which is different for everybody) Well if by "intrinsic worth" you have some notion of objective or absolute truth, you will have a hard time convincing me of it. I don't believe in such things. There is no objective reality and there is no absolute truth.... just people's opinions. And since I'm me, mine is the one that's right. But all this is tempered by the fact that I don't judge what I think is "good" art by how much I like it (though it's still ultimately just my opinion -- but we've already had that discussion already: see "good music vs. bad music"). > Your Van Gogh example is a good case in point. You *already know* his > work, so saying that he would have been just as great is meaningless. It's not meaningless! I'm no logical positivist. Unverifiable statements have meaning in my system of meaning. > If no one had heard of him, he would not have the influence on other > painters that he has. I have already told you that in my opinion, the > most "objective" measure of artistic worth we have is the degree of > influence on others Well I don't agree with your subjective opinion about this being a good "objective" measure. So how objective does that make it? > (insufficient though that measurement may be, the only other is the > purely subjective "I think so, therefore it is," that Rosen and others > are so intent on stamping out :-) In that there is no such thing as objective truth, I think that they will have a difficult time doing that (if that's really what they want to do). Any argument is basically "I think so there for it is", but a good argument gives reasons and outlines the thought processes involved in arriving at the conclusion so that you can see where the person is coming from and perhaps think it through in the same manner. "Some say that knowledge is something sat in your lap Some say that knowledge is something that you never have" Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA)
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (09/03/85)
> [From Doug Alan:] > > ME > > .... So a great artist who is totally > > unknown is a contradiction > > I don't think it's a contradiction. In my opinion, if Van Gogh had > lived alone on Mars, and not a single other human being had seen his > work, he would have still been a great artist. Of course, if that were > the case, I wouldn't being saying now that he was a great artist because > I would have never seen any of his paintings... But in my opionion, a > great artist is any artist who I would call great if I had the > opportunity of experiencing their art. > The point, Doug, is not to say that something is great, but to say WHY it is great in your value system. So a statement like your last sentence is meaningless. We know that already, it is true of all of us. This discussion is about the process by which you say something is great. I argue that the only semi objective measure of greatness we have, however imperfect it may be, is influence on others and critical recognition, allowing suficient evaluation time to eliminate distortions caused by popular tastes during the artist's life. You > ..... totally disagree with and object to the notion > that popularity has anything at all to do with how great an artist is. > Very well. So how do you decide that an artist is great? > > There is no objective reality and there is no > absolute truth.... just people's opinions. And since I'm me, mine is > the one that's right. But all this is tempered by the fact that I don't > judge what I think is "good" art by how much I like it (though it's > still ultimately just my opinion ..... ) You just said that a great artist is whomever you would call great, but now you say you don't judge "good" art by your likes and dislikes. I admit to being confused. What do you judge art by? > Any argument is basically "I think so there for it is", but a > good argument gives reasons and outlines the thought processes involved > in arriving at the conclusion so that you can see where the person is > coming from and perhaps think it through in the same manner. But you have not done so. I keep asking you to, but you give me contradictory statements and generalities. What are YOUR "reasons and outlines and thought processes involved in arriving at the conclusion"?? Marcel Simon