If there was ever a word that belongs at the top of Cheerskep's list of the most clumsy tools to guarantee thick muddiness of notions, it's talent.
Why assume that talent is measured by some eye-hand skill to imitate imitations of imitations (with thanks to Plato)? Talent could just as easily be an ability to imagine strange objects or situations. It might be nothing more than the skill to keep up with the mass culture ideas of goodness (the advertising talent) or to foresee (and then shape) what consumers will like next year. Talent is surely one word we could do without. Most people have passive vocabulary of just several thousand words. Most people have a speaking vocabulary of just 600 words. I guess they have no talent for language. WC --- On Fri, 10/17/08, Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: The Kitsch Test > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [email protected] > Date: Friday, October 17, 2008, 9:51 AM > I admit that it took me a while to answer the first question > on the test: > > "Do you prefer truth to talent and sensuality?" > > Perhaps the mainstream tradition of European aesthetics > would not accept this > as a dichotomy -- but it's hardly novel to make a > distinction between truth > and very clever, skilled appearances. (especially in an > election year) > > The artworld example that first popped into my mind was the > fabulous cycle of > ancient Buddhist paintings from Ajanta. Those images of > beautiful, > half-naked, elegant, regal women have always appealed to me > -- even after I > learned that they are supposed to represent man-eating > demons in disguise. I > recognize the truth of the doctrine being presented -- and > yet still -- I > prefer to admire the talent and enjoy the sensuality. > > Whether this distinction is made by any of the writers that > were mentioned - - > I can't say. > > Certainly Greenberg's essay makes a dichotomy between > true culture and kitsch > -- but he attributes the appeal of kitsch to its > presentation of things or > stories that are vividly recognizable (rather than > especially sensual) -- and > he does not seem to allow that very much talent was > required to achieve that > vivid recognizability. > > This is, I think, a serious oversight in Greenberg's > approach -- especially > if his category of kitsch is going to include the paintings > of Repin. > > Perhaps Odd and Jan should have presented that kind of > critique -- instead of > making a short, little test -- but hey, they're > painters - not philosophers. > They quickly put a bunch of issues up on the table -- > it's up to others to do > the follow up. > > ********** > > > > > > > Mr Miller, > > No Matter the priority one gives to them, I have no idea > what difference is > being imputed by "Either Truth OR talent and > sensuality." The statement > strikes me as incoherent. Worse, it introduces a > distinction that is > totally alien to aesthetics (so far as I am aware of the > tradition). For, > in the first instance, Aesthetics has always been in the > business of > imputing truth and meaning to the sensuous, and of > cultivating though > exercise/practice the talents for living in a social world > (Baumgarten). > The questionnaire attacks the very idea of aesthetics by > imputing a > difference between truth and the sensuous, which is > abstract, ill-informed > and ultimately pointless. For instance, a Pollock or > Rothko painting is > just as 'sensuous' as a Rembrandt, Monet, Or > Caravaggio. The only > difference, between the first two and the others, is > whether they depend > upon something 'outside' of the four edges of the > canvas for their > intelligibility (e.g. experience with a human face/form, > what water lilies > look like, biblical stories, etc). > > I reject the questionnaire outright, and not merely the > privilege given to > what 'someone call' kitsch. > > On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Chris Miller <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > Well - yes -- being the sensitive, insecure artistes > that they are, Nerdrum > > and Tuv constructed a questionnaire where the default > value (the one that > > requires no consent) puts the test-taker firmly on > their side (the > > "kitsch" > > side) of the culture wars. > > > > And if you reversed each question -- asking, for > example, "Do you prefer > > talent and sensuality to truth" instead of > "Do you prefer truth to talent > > and > > sensuality?" -- the test-taker would be > identified with their perceived > > opponents. > > > > But the issues raised in most of the questions seem to > be ones often raised > > here and in other forums where art is discussed. (or > if they're not -- they > > should be. And many can also be found in this famous > essay: > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Click to receive credit card help and get out of debt fast. > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/Ioyw6ijmM9jfl6qvUZcND6yFZc3IyZ > mbZ4GNcYLjuPnbwrgPHufJvW/
