To evaluate quality of the work of art with broad level of competence is the most complex process of human emotions, which needs as much useful information as possible of all kinds, absorbed so deep that it becomes a part of our 'blood'. It means we forget we have it at the time of the Experience. Master-work's evaluation could be never complete, at least from my experience. It is perpetual learning. Boris Shoshensky
---------- Original Message ---------- From: imago Asthetik <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Judging the late Titian Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 13:05:26 -0400 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. > > > > >/> ____________________________________________________________ Click here to find the perfect picture with our powerful photo search features. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYR2bod3Z8xoBJjWGr55IhhB5 ovgeH6cCytQ1Sf1ejtlGMJtfqs7pG/
