I think Gissing's point is all wrong.  Just as we can't say that meaning is 
inherent to a word so we can't say that talent is inherent to an artist.  
Talent 
is a quality we ascribe to someone; meaning is an interpretation we ascribe to 
a 
word/s. 

An artist does something that can be encircled by a context that members of a 
group regard as art for various reasons they choose. Talent, genius, 
creativity, 
all those qualitative words are interpretative and descriptive. They don't 
identify anything independent of interpretation.

Further, Gissing's remarks hark back to older romantic notions of the artist as 
outsider, a different sort of creature, having unique uber-human but usually 
troubling traits.  That artist is likened to a mythic mortal who might have 
been 
awarded the magical powers of a god.  

In the Renaissance a "cult of genius" arose that claimed the abilities of some 
artists were signs of divine gifts, something supernatural, godly and thus 
making those artists superior to other people, putting them on an even footing 
at least with their divinely ordained patron-rulers.  The cultish honorifics 
had 
a practical benefit that helped to end the artisan tradition and make the 
artist 
more than a tradesman, something of a philosopher-scientist-theologan, akin to 
the class of bishops or monarchs.

Truth?

Nobody's got talent or genius until someone else ascribes it to them.

wc


----- Original Message ----
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Sent: Sat, October 2, 2010 3:31:20 PM
Subject: Re: is aesthetics dead?

In a message dated 10/2/10 2:41:40 PM, [email protected] writes:


> My guess is Gissing was making a basic error in logic: He noticed many 
> would-be artists studied to no avail. From which he dim-wittedly inferred 
> all 
> artists study to no avail. 
> 

Or he may have believed in "genius" and the idea that it is a gift given to 
few and can't be studied for.   My money would be on genius.   His initial 
sentence about principles being   discussed vehemently when practice is at a 
low ebb is nonsense-argument   is always freely indulged in by all.
Kate Sullivan

Reply via email to