Brady asks:
>Then why do you keep proposing some kind of test for taste, aesthetic sensibility, etc.? Aren't those things (taste, aesthetic sensibility) proxies or stalking horses of "good art"? Old Cheers has often reminded us that some famous playwright never cared much for "Hamlet", and this is one of his reasons for not believing in good art. And I am sure that if we ever assembled a dream team of aesthetes who had scored highest on the Miller test, they would not necessarily agree on everything. But I would have more confidence and interest in their opinions than I would of anyone else's. Those are the people whom I would prefer to be curating exhibits in art museums -- instead of just those who have demonstrated familiarity with art history, critical literature, and an uncanny ability for fund raising and climbing a corporate ladder. Cheerskep reminds us: >most of my effort is aimed against the indefensibly foggy notion behind "Good art exists". I also have a very foggy notion of electricity, romantic love, gravity, justice, etc. etc. But I also believe such things exist -- and my life depends upon many such beliefs. Doesn't yours ? (which doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to clarify such notions, as far as we can) Not everyone who's involved in the arts believes that good art exists -- indeed, such a belief is probably a severe handicap for career success. ____________________________________________________________ Click to become an artist and quit your boring job. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxT8V1LaQPKhUXIXKluMhx1RA i8ttFPIMfegc3YGCF5OtkCklOMuek/
