Before launching an attack on Titian's late work -- I thought I'd take another look on the internet -- and realized that it was only a few pieces that I can't stand -- especially those two that were recently in the news: "Diana and Actaeon" along with "Diana and Callisto" -- as shown here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7584902.stm Do I really need to explain how jumbled these are? They should be cut up to protect the good areas from the bad. (and I also can't stand the two statues in the background of his last, probably unfinished, painting, "Pieta") Regarding the rest of William's assertions -- I do not agree that "one who is deeply informed about that artist and the literature examining him/her" is necessarily a better judge of aesthetic quality than anyone else -- although, I would also not say that "most ordinary judgment is equal to the most informed" We just have a different idea as to what qualifies as "most informed". I've been getting into the culture of Hindustani music a bit, lately, and in one memoir, the author wrote of an old man coming up to her and her teacher (a famous singer) and recalling a concert he had heard 30 years earlier, and then making a thoughtful, and very useful comment. He clearly was knowledgeable about the art, but he was nothing like a professional scholar. Could a non-professional scholar make a good judgment about some new findings in microbiology or astrophysics? I don't know - perhaps - but it seems less likely, because a good judgment in those fields requires familiarity with a large body of evidence and theory -- while the only evidence required to judge a painting is presented by the painting itself, and theory should be irrelevant except as a way to explain a judgment that's already been made. ____________________________________________________________ Internet Security Software - Click here. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxQZBmQ3C2rA5fXZw7G6HMxTc U7LLTEvafX9rHUC7N6ftnxRjm8pe4/
