Manship was a good example of pure art deco. He exemplified a style, with grace and formal design. If the result is art, it is a very minor art.
Miller's second sentence below makes an assertion that cannot be demonstrated. It's just an empty opinion lacking any objective evidence. He cannot tell us -- independently of his opinion -- what constitutes excellence in any specific art and he can't show any correspondence between that absent condition and another absent condition, achievement. Excellence is a handy term if we know its identifying traits. But these need to be extracted from a specific condition of something, like an act or object, in comparison to an agreed ideal condition for that act or object. Yet there can't be an ideal act or object until there is some act or object. In other words, there is no prexisting ideal of excellence available for comparison with something in which case we are forced to conclude that whatever is said to be excellent is excellent. The next best thing to do is to compare one excellent thing to another thing that is proposed as excellent and try to make analogical or metaphorical correspondences -- effectively loaning the excellence of one thing to another thing. But these correspondences are never one to one. They always stretch or shrink what is being compared. So, we can claim that a portrait by Titian is excellent by comparing its excellence to the excellence of another portrait either by Titian or by someone else. But this is a faulty, wishful comparison. The excellence of one Titian portrait cannot be matched by any other Titian portrait -- or by anything at all. The same is true for any artwork. The best we can do is to say that all artworks are propositional, suggested instances of excellence as bolstered by the equally propositional excellence of other artworks or things which have their own unrepeatable excellences. It's all hope, faith, persuasion. Excellence is particular. A onetime event. Thus every instance of excellence is unique and not repeatable. It cannot be achieved because no standard can prescribe it. Achievement is something else, I think. Achievement can be predetermined by some set of standards or measures. One may only propose excellence. It is a leap of faith to say that such and such achievement represents excellence for there is no internal link between the two concepts. There can be excellence without achievement and achievement without excellence. Miller's comment is intended to suggest that there ought to be a demonstrable connnection between excellence and achievement. This is a false requirement. What ought to be presumed is that excellence and achievement are separate conditions without internal relationship. WC > > That's how the last great/famous American sculptor > (IMHO), Paul Manship, got > started so fast. > > But as we now know -- excellence in any specific art > is irrelevant to what's > recognized as achievement in "Art" > > > > > > > ************** > Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video > on AOL > Home. > > (http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15?ncid=aolhom00 > 030000000001)
