Your stance is contrary to experience of the way in which the terms 'talent' and 'genius' are used. People very often agree on both ascriptions of talent or genius, and also on the reasons for these ascriptions. It might be the case that these ascriptions, and the reasons for them, are not particularly interesting, and this might even be true in spite of all the evidence (including the above discussion) that shows that we are interested in them. But it is clearly not for 'no reason in particular' that people use these terms. Boris is right to ask for a more substantial account of the circumstances in which these terms are used.
R On 10 October 2010 18:44, William Conger <[email protected]> wrote: > Nothing in particular. Each person would have his or her own reason. > wc > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Boris Shoshensky <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sun, October 10, 2010 11:24:59 AM > Subject: Re: is aesthetics dead? > > "Nobody's got talent or genius until someone else ascribes it to them". > wc > > What makes someone ascribe it to them? > > Boris Shoshensky > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: is aesthetics dead? > Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 14:30:31 -0700 (PDT) > > 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
