On Mar 27, 2008, at 11:09 AM, Chris Miller wrote:

I'm conflating excellence and achievement out of a kind of social idealism -- i.e. I want a high status for those things I consider excellent -- so I don't
really accept the ordinary markers for achievement.


But what if Miller's judgment is wrong? He chastises the judgment of others--you know, curators--who pronounce works "excellent" and "great," but one he thinks are hideous, tendentious, hortatorical ... or just plain ugly.

To them (the curators), the works they choose to exhibit do embody "excellence" and "achievement," so for Miller to dispute that and to prefer his own choices of "things I consider excellent" is simply to replace their list with his.

It boils down to solipsism (Miller's list) or a popularity contest (do more people like Miller's list or the curator's list). And judging the works by dragging out a canon of standards that is literally centuries old doesn't help.

For one thing, if one used 19th century musical standards to judge compositions, that would categorically exclude jazz and other 20th century compositions generally judged to be accomplishments of great skill and even genius.

But beyond that, artists have always chosen to follow directions different from the old standards because they (the artists) wanted to produce works that they thought were equal to the old stuff, but were clearly outside the rules. How did sculpture get from the Archaic kouroi to the Hellenistic Apoxyomenos? from International Gothic style to the High Renaissance and then Mannerism? Way, way before the French Academy and the modern masters. The point that Greenberg made, btw, was that the Modernists tried to equal the accomplishments of the Great Masters in quality. They weren't flinging a paint-pot at the public just for the hell of it or as a grand egomaniacal gesture.

Miller's constant excoriation of Modernist art and his equally constant elevation of Academy standards of beauty and skill has the ring of a old style Catholic looking around for a Tridentine service, and I suspect his fervor comes very close to the sin of pride, namely, of false humility.


| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to