>I would like to see your objections to the proposal rewritten without resorting to the personal characteristics of those conducting the discussion with you. (Kate)
That's not possible, Kate, if we accept that proposals about "good art" can only be subjective. (unless we're just talking about price) Please note that William began his proposal with a personal reference to his interlocutor as ignorant and lazy: "Typical of Miller to reserve for himself the passive expectation that art will speak to him, as it were, without any effort on his part." Then, as you castigate my "ad hominem" while ignoring his, you move beyond subjectivity into group dynamics. Humans form alliances when we get together in groups, don't we? It's unavoidable, we're social animals, more like termites than eagles. And since personal references and group dynamics are unavoidable in discussions of aesthetics, I won't complain about them one teensy bit. But getting back to the discussion of "inevitable and resolved" - I found it exciting because this is the first time our listserv has seen these words in reference to that mysterious quality that separates good visual art from bad. As Michael writes, "Inevitable and resolved" implies completion and coherence, fittedness, proportion, all those things.". But "inevitable" also involves the powerful feelings associated with destiny and history. The idea that all this sturm und drang is eventually going somewhere; while "resolved" gives hope that our many frayed loose ends will eventually be tied. The quality that separates good art from bad is going to remain an unspeakable mystery, but unless something is said about it, there is no way to challenge the economic engines of the art and educational industries. I wonder where William got those words? From critiques with other artists, perhaps his teachers? From writers of art theory? I'd be interested to know. But unfortunately, no sooner had he introduced them as the make-or-break of visual art, than he retreated back into the dominant ideology of the contemporary art world and art school - where art needs to appear "confusing and paradoxical" so that authorities are needed to explain it. And where do you stand on this, Kate? Does the goodness of visual art jump out at you (if not at first sight, then maybe second or third) --- and are "inevitable and resolved" words that you might apply, or does it often require an explanation (provided by yourself or others) so that you can recognize it as clever/insightful/appropriate/whatever ? And if so -- do you consider the "genuinely good art" to be that which at first appears to be confusing and paradoxical? ____________________________________________________________ Let your voice be heard! Click here and get paid to participate in surveys! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxPqYaSowucuFzZfJLYWwNl4m t70eB3UeaxikPlAarkOSUrVPOZSTm/
