William writes:
"Miller is wrong because he bases all of his arguments on reception, that is,
the viewer, any viewer, and particularly the less informed and sensitive
viewers. Would he advocate the man in the street as the deciding expert on a
musical composition, a symphony by a major composer?"
I myself would not advocate than anyone be "the deciding expert" in any of
the creative genres. Many of us tend to have our favorite experts/critics. I
think our favorites are consistently the ones who react to a work as we do. I
know more about the history and craft than most do in the fields of fiction and
theater, but it's a sure thing other experts would disapprove of some of my
ecstatic celebrations and cold rejections.
"Art is not made for ordinary lookers but for some elusive standard of
excellence, based on the excellences already evident to the most expert judges.
That's how it works."
Reading "experts" can be interesting and informative. A narrative expert
might cite bits the author slipped into the narrative early, and how it
enhanced
the impact of moments later on. I like it when I encounter something like that,
especially when it surprises me. Similarly, I liked coming across Orwell's
insightful remark about Dickens: "The signal mark of Dickens's genius was the
unnecessary touch." That's Orwell citing what he considers an "excellence" in
Dickens's work.
But I submit this remark on all information and judgments from experts:
NEVER, NOT ONCE, HAS A COMMENT OR ILLUMINATING OBSERVATION BY AN EXPERT CAUSED
ME
TO DERIVE AN AESTHETIC EXPERIENCE FROM A WORK THAT DID NOT OCCASION IT IN ME
BEFORE.
**************
New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.
Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out!
(http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001)
