For me genius is not so much one who changed formal or stylistic approach. It is just new important step in the evolution of arts. Genius for me is a profound spiritual influence changing the nature of human culture. It includes forms/ techniques, emotions, taste and other components of a creative process leading to the masterpiece. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: is aesthetics dead? Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 12:44:45 -0700 (PDT)
My claim rests on the assumption that terms such as genius and talent cannot be discerned as intrinsic to any object. We can and do, however, pretend that they can and then we devise various measures (codes) by which we claim, again without any inherent evidence, that whatever our measuring identifies is the trait we seek. Here's an example: The formalist history of Western art is predicated on the identity of style and its evolution over time. This methodology naturally centers on the instances where changes in style occur and then, more specifically what those formal changes were and who initiated them. Giotto is regarded as a genius artist because he was among the very first and likely the most assured artist to renew a rational illusion of pictorial space in painting. Thus the measure of genius here is "a renewed way to portray depth on a flat surface" and various historical documents from Giotto's time and our comparison/contrast with hindsight point to Giotto as the most significant author of that change. Other artists of his time followed his new style but since they only imitated him they are not geniuses although a broader measure (like refinement of line) might qualify them as talented. There is nothing in the artwork, nothing in the line, nothing in the artists, that can be pointed to as genius aside from the predetermination of the measure (stylistic change). Art historians then look for evidence that Giotto's renewed illusionism influenced other artists and, lo, they find evidence they seek. Then it occurs that one of those artists upped the ante by fogging up the new illusionism with obfuscating light and shadow and so there is a new genius. Thus if genius is tied directly to influential stylistic change, then one simply looks for those changes in surviving artworks and then one can find the geniuses. These geniuses can be qualitatively ranked by new measures, such as the degree of stylistic change they introduced or by other qualities, like personal charm (see Vasari) or market value (then and now). So, art history provides artificial templates for genius and then whoever best fits the templates, becomes the genius. The templates are artificial and extrinsic to inherent qualities of art or people. Changing the templates, like changing the rules of a game, might produce a different set of geniuses. That is precisely what is going on now in art history. For example instead of style as the foundation of art, now it's cultural patterns, codes, discourses. New templates are being devised that are comfy with the preoccupations of contemporary society and are retro-fitted to past artworks and as a result, new geniuses will be "discovered". Move over, Giotto. When you say that people often agree on ascriptions of talent and genus, I ask if they are agreeing to accept predetermined judgments or have they all come to the same judgment by their own study of the evidence (which I claim above, is spurious)? Truth is, the Institutional Theory is the pragmatic theory of choice. We say so and so was/is a genius because some "artworld" authority has said it for us. The notation of genius or even talent (is that propositional genius?) is determined by many different means and I agree that most of them are Institutional but nowadays even that is up for grabs and a sort of market-defined template is in first place. More than ever, anyone can designate the genius and the most respected "objective" proof is in the marketplace where money is the measure. Ask a 100,000 dollars for your kid's latest dabble and if you get it, the kid's a genius. It's happened. Or better yet, if you can claim celebrity of any sort, then make artworks. You will be a genius because your celebrity stands in for quality. That happens a lot. Imagine, If Henry VIII had fired Holbein and made his own portraits because he was the greater celebrity he would by today's standards be a genius artist and Holbein a hack. Now and then some new "objective" measures are devised. Currently, there are a spate of art contests with huge money awards which are decided entirely by public vote (direct democracy in action). I suppose the few winners can be deemed geniuses to be explained in art discourse. But is this much different from the so-called MacArthur Genius grants which are determined in secret by an unknown panel with unknown aims. So far all their choices have been as predictable in terms of elite "institutional" taste as the new big prize art winners are predictable in terms of popular mass taste. Show me the template and I'll show you the geniuses. If there's no template in place, then there's no way to determine genius, or talent, or failure either. There is nothing pre-existing about templates, nothing inherent to them, and thus there is nothing inherent to genius. One way or another, it's a societal way to organize values which are themselves transient and inherently empty. Ain't it great that there are no preordained rules? wc ----- Original Message ---- From: Rupert Dasilva <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sun, October 10, 2010 12:58:31 PM Subject: Re: is aesthetics dead? 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
