On Apr 6, 2009, at 9:15 PM, [email protected] wrote:
William's position on the precedence due the "judgment" of learned
art historians and critics is as arbitrary and vacuous as Frances's
was. There is in the ASA forum's archive an abundance of effective
rebuttal of Frances's position, and all of it applies to William's
current stance.
It's understandable that William should be vexed at seeing others,
not nearly so learned as he, reverence their own opinion more than
they do his, but the history of aesthetics is stained by how often
"experts' judgments" have been disdained by later experts as the
"objective" standards on which the earlier experts based their
judgments were shown to be not just arbitrary but sterile. In my
current field, theater, there have been "objective" standards such
as the rules for a "well-made play" that have come to be seen as
inapplicable to what makes a theatrical work prizable by many of us.
I agree with Miller when he rejects similar allegedly objective
citations by William of, say, criteria for compositional excellence,
that William evidently feels in some way "proves" Titian's "Diana
and Callisto" is above reproach by others less learned than he.
This is mostly a Miller's Tale, and Mando just got caught up in it by
an casual remark on the rebound.
In this discussion of Titian, and in many others, Miller specifically
speaks out, not by offering an informed opposition to William's
statements, but by impugning the integrity both of the scholarship and
the moral character of scholars, curators, artists, and others who
work in the different institutions of art--and personally of William.
They are the kept souls, pawns or dupes or active participants with
the vile forces of crass commerce and self-congratulating power.
He claims that he can educate himself (how? from whom? from what
sources?) and hone his aesthetic awareness, taste, and ultimately
judgment independently of the mainline art world. But this is merely a
misdirection, intended to take our attention off his main purpose,
maligning art historians, critics, curators, and even artists.
When William writes on any art topic--and on most cultural topics--he
writes with knowledge of current and historical facts, and he writes
with clarity and evident familiarity and understanding of the topics.
His messages are always worth paying attention to. It's a mark of true
humility for an intelligent listener to acknowledge the cogency of his
comments. That doesn't mean that everyone must agree with William, but
everyone should respond with an equal appreciation for the facts, for
the logic of arguments, for reasonable clarity of expression. Miller
doesn't do that. Instead, he claims the supremacy of autonomous
experience. BFD. Everyone has experiences.
When it comes to the topic at hand, he announced "Before launching an
attack on Titian's late work" and then, after a few left-handed
dismissals of the paintings, proceeds to say "We [William and he] just
have a different idea as to what qualifies as 'most informed' [about
aesthetic judgment].'" In other words, it doesn't matter what others
who have taken a long career studying Titian have to say, when he has
an opinion, too. And besides, art scholars aren't to be trusted.
This isn't a matter of some outsider or naif offering some unexpected
insight, of some nonexpert speaking out of turn, or of a professor
taking umbrage at others who "reverence their own opinion more than
they do his." (That's beneath you.) It's a matter of conducting our
discussions with more respect and intelligence than Miller bothers with.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[email protected]
