Notice what happens when the word 'beauty' is introduced into the discussion
of a painting?
There is ever-expanding reference to specific qualities/features -- and a
need to look a that work again, again, and again.
And so -- Brian's discussion of the Turners at the CMA and the Tate compels us
to hunt for images of those paintings -- and William's discussion of how paint
is handled in a Goya is the beginning, rather than the end, of a close
examination of those paintings -- and a further interrogation of William.
Their voices are currently quiet on this listserv -- but art theorists would
take the discussion in a very different direction -- diving into the history
of ideas (and ideas of history) rather than the re-examination of a particular
painting.
But a smug, Derek-like assertion that "we know X is art" is both the beginning
and the end of discussion.
You agree -- or you don't -- and there's nowhere else to go.
********************
However,
When Derek asserts that "It's (Beauty) the kind of thing that gives art
criticism and aesthetics a bad name." --- it does lead me to question why an
intelligent person really would bother with those fields of study "in which
words can be made to mean anything the writer chooses them to mean"
Perhaps art criticism and aesthetics should not be considered proper fields of
study - with their own institutions, vetted experts and specialized vocabulary
- just like astro-physics and nuclear biology. Perhaps their development as
such is an historical anomaly -- like alchemy or astrology -- hopefully to be
eventually corrected.
_____________________________________________________________
Be the envy of your friends. Click for the latest designer shoes at huge
discounts.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2211/fc/Ioyw6ijmkEuDiIpVRFaHUNbgexbwba
6x731nCrnUTwnqAdNmCxL9g4/?count=1234567890
