Mando, your romantic sensibility is clouding your understanding of what I am trying to make clear.
Let me try again: First, your word clonker is not a word as far as I know. I get what you mean however, something like clunker, meaning something worthless. So I'm quite certain that no work by Titian, however meager, is worthless, either aesthetically or monetarily. Second, you still confuse --actually conflate -- the distinction I made between judgment and personal experience with respect to artworks. Third, when I described judgment as a matter of consensus it was clear that this was largely distinct from the personal sensation or personal aesthetic feeling or emotion, what I lumped together as the personal experience. I say largely because I recognize that a more insightful judgment may be obtained if the consensus included such experience, but such experience is not necessary to judgment. (An analogy would be a jurist voting to acquit a much despised person because the evidence, and the consensus of judgment, led to that conclusion). Fourth, when you say such and such is a clunker, worthless, without taking everything related into account, then you are merely saying that your feeling, your experience, is equivalent to a judgment. I say it is not. With respect to an artwork you may make private pretend judgments -- meaning you express your personal experience AS IF it were an actual judgment. But, again, that is not sufficient to stand as a judgment in the usual sense of the term, something that requires a full examination of the "evidence" which in art means the whole context of the work itself and its surrounding context through time. Anything less than that is irresponsible bluster. And that's also why, in my opinion, many artists do themselves and the profession no service at all when they assume that their well-intentioned bluster is in fact enlightened --or genius-- judgment. Fifth, there is no reasonable connection between the supposed independent actions of the artist and the consensus of judgment. Some artists aim to match in their art what they presume to be judgment and some aim to contradict the supposed judgment. But the reality is far more complex, I think. No artist is free from the generalized judgment inherited from art history and ongoing culture. No artist is truly able to match the generalized judgment because no generalized judgment exists, meaning no convincing consensus is ever reached as a result of its evolving nature and many, many iterations. All artists are working somewhere along the scale of received consensus judgment, either closer to a presumed historical model of judgment or closer to a presumed antagonism of that multi-faceted judgment. You can't escape it. Finally, you will need to be very explicit if you intend to convince me or any serious student of art, and Titian, that his composition in any of his work is a clunker. In a recent post I at least alluded to his use of the well-recognized Albertian and Leonardesque triangular figural composition and Raphaelite "dynamic linear composition" and other tropes of Renaissance art. Titian was using and abusing the conventions of his era and thus heralded the explosive, open compositions of the Baroque. I suppose with enough study and research my thesis re the late Titian could be largely supported by the evidence. But I studied with some of the major art scholars so I am biased toward scholarship over personal bluster when it comes to art judgment. And it hasn't hurt me as an artist. WC ________________________________ From: armando baeza <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2009 1:31:37 AM Subject: Re: Judging the late Titian In reference to Diana and Actaeon only I'm amazed at the anger the word "clonker" brings out in a person. Relax William , all creative people do them, I'm sure you've done some that never show up in the galleries. I am quite convince that Titian is far above us. But as talented as he was , could have done better with this composition. I feel he was not happy with this one. I think he struggled. I saw it with fresh eyes, not though consensus eyes, that's the only way I see. Just imagine what the consensus of the judges in those days would be of your work, you would have to say, that's unfair you don't know what you are talking about, and you would be right. I know that my view is not fair to their time, but I'm not a consensus artist. I reflect the road I travel, not the road I'm told to travel. mando On Apr 5, 2009, at 10:39 AM, William Conger wrote: > I need to concede to Mando and Miller, and perhaps others here re the tit-tat > over Titian's late works. They persist in avoiding the issues and persist in > elevating their personal feelings about art as the only measure of ITS value > and not as simply an expression of THEIR values. > > I certainly agree that the object has no intrinsic value/meaning but I do > think it can be surrounded by a surrogate value/meaning by some process of > consensus. I think this is what Saul was referring to when he brought up > Kant and the independent status of an essence that can't be treated except > subjectively. > > So, a consensus of subjectivity is the best we can do. And it counts. When > it comes to examining the work of a great artist, one who has been awarded > that status through a long and detailed and complex process leading to > consensus, we need to have the humility to know the details of the consensus > if we intend to judge it and the artist's work as well. Mando and Miller > think not. And Mando, with his sparkling halo of the spiritual, intuitive > artist, and Miller, with his tortured anti-intellectual, > anti-academic/institiutional predisposition, have the temerity to set me up > as some sort of alien supreme court pedagogue when it's abundantly clear from > their positions, that they, not me, and not others, occupy the nefarious > position because they just, well, sense their authority in their souls. Not > good enough for me. Why? Partly because no artwork exists in a vacuum, > unaffected by the home cultures in which it was created and the later > cultures it > passes through. So you can't expect to be prepared to judge a work of art, > even if you can experience it, without being steeped in the auras of those > surrounding cultures. Talk about the experience all you like, be as moved or > teary-eyed or as emboldened as you wish, but don't attempt to judge until you > have done some homework. > > The fact is that no one here is dealing with my repeated efforts to separate > judgment from the sense/feeling of personal experience. I'm just happy to > know that this issue was resolved centuries ago in courts. Not only in the > USA by Justice Holmes but also in republics long gone. Nowadays juries are > rigorously instructed to learn the aforementioned distinction. We no longer > dip people into hot vats of oil to see if they wiggle in agonizing death > (thus guilty) or just die limply (thus not guilty). These assertions of > intuitive, personal feelings as bona-fide judgment are akin to those brutal > and ludicrous actics of the Inquisition. > > WC > > > ________________________________ > From: armando baeza <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2009 12:46:16 PM > Subject: Re: Judging the late Titian > > You are only defending your personal subjective ideas of what is true to you > and others like you, > As the "Supreme Court of Aesthetics". I don't buy that. > > mando > > On Apr 4, 2009, at 11:08 AM, William Conger wrote: > >> Savage is right. Ruthless in the defense of reason and intellect and >> knowledge and virtue and insight and nuance and deference to the spiritual >> feminine and all things true, beautiful, and fearful. >> WC >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: armando baeza <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> >> Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2009 10:37:38 AM >> Subject: Re: Judging the late Titian >> >> I truly believe that his "savage" remark came from his soul. >> I feel sorry for him. >> Apache native >> mando >> >> On Apr 4, 2009, at 8:03 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> >>> In a message dated 4/3/09 8:23:38 PM, [email protected] writes: >>> >>> >>>> And huzzah on your arrogant artist's defense of Titian, even those bad >>>> late ones. <g> >>>> >>>> Michael, you often bring a rewarding, arch, irony to your lines. >>> Occasionally >>> this undermines surety about what your own position is, but that can be >>> okay. >>> For example, it's unsure if you are praising or ridiculing William here. >>> >>> I don't agree with William when he chastises Mando for daring to deride any >>> work of Titian's -- as you also dae to do by insinuating Titian had bad late >>> paintings. As Horace said, "Sometimes even noble Homer nods." I have >>> frequent >>> dinners with a friend who is a Shakespeare scholar. The admiration we feel >>> for >>> W.S. is such that sometimes all we can do is shake our heads in loving awe. >>> But we would never think of defending his every line. In truth, I think that >>> to >>> condemn any criticism whatever of W.S. -- or Titian -- would be to display a >>> defective sensibility. But I grant I can't be sure William was being >>> serious >>> when he rounded on Mando... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ************** >>> Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a >>> recession. >>> (http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare00000003 >>> )
