Fortunately, "assertions of intuitive, personal feelings" regarding artworks have never followed "dipping people into hot vats of oil to see if they wiggle in agonizing death"
And a bona-fide judgment regarding artworks is never required, except when determining what goes into a public collection. ( BTW - I've already conceded that a consensus of recognized experts is the best that we can do in such situations) But, we're not in that situation here on this listserv, are we ? We're just discussing the relative value of things and ways of evaluating them, and within that discussion, it's been my assertion that the consensus of experts is worthless. Does Professor X really say that Titian never painted a clunker ? That would be an interesting statement, if we know more about Professor X. Did he place any of Titian's paintings above any of the others ? Did he place every painting by Titian above every painting by Gorgione or Veronese ? If so -- what were his explanations? And -- what other painters from world art history did he rate the highest ? These are questions that I would find interesting. But to compile some kind of consensus among Professors W,X.Y, and Z -- that would be the simple minded school boy's worthless contribution. (indeed, William has yet to even tell us anything about the consensus of experts regarding the Late Titian - other than to suggest that they would deliver a judgment on its behalf -- like the "two thumbs up" that popular movie critics might offer) Giving those late Titians another look (a bunch can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2007/11/21/arts/20071122_TITIAN_SLIDESHOW_in dex.html ... I'd have to say that overall, Titian has replaced joy with determination -- which is only appropriate for humans as we stare down death and try to manage our fading powers. But fading they are - and an old man simply does not have the mental strength to achieve what he could when he painted, for example, "The Bacchanal". And his shortcomings are most apparent when he tries to compose those large groups of figures - like the Diana series about which I complained last week. Perhaps William is less sensitive to this issue, since modernist painting has hardly concerned itself with the space around a single, believable figure, much less a dozen -- but for me, Titian's failures in Diana are as painful as his success with "The Bacchanal" was enjoyable. Master worship is a major crime against aesthetics. It not only elevates the lesser work of masters -- but it denigrates the better work of the unrecognized. I'm not sure that the perpetrators deserve to be boiled in oil -- but, at least, they should be sent back to the galleries to take another look (while forgetting what the experts have written) ***************************************************************** >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. ____________________________________________________________ Get a Business Credit Card. Click Here. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxQqb81P2DfBcsuGe7C8ruR2q qj8cP3arFpwIR56reILu00fD1EMd6/
