Mr Miller writes, "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."
I wonder how much work is being done by the lonely modal verb, 'should' in this sentence. How heavy a conceptual load does it have to bear? For in the first instance I am tempted to say that the act of painting is no less theoretical than the act of reading. But reading is not necessarily an art, save perhaps metaphorically. My point: why would one think that the product of a theoretical act should be more immediate that the process it emerged from (even if the product sometimes seems to us psychological agents to be 'immediately given') ? Why, in other words, should everyone be able to immediately understand a work, be able to immediately feel its beauty, when the ideas of 'work' and of 'beauty' are in a very real sense theoretical contrivances to begin with? Could you explain, Mr Miller, why artworks _should_ be immediately intelligible? On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Chris Miller <[email protected]>wrote: > 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/<http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxQZBmQ3C2rA5fXZw7G6HMxTc%0AU7LLTEvafX9rHUC7N6ftnxRjm8pe4/>
