I agree that Raphael is maybe better painter, but M is more sophisticated soul and by the way it is shown in his anatomically purposefully distorted beauty of David. The profound is always stoned in the beginning. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: is aesthetics dead? Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 12:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
Michelangelo had the personal traits and abilities and opportunities to do what was regarded as suited to the societal "template" for great art during his lifetime.This template was defined by some during his life and as new templates were devised, some of which were modeled and on Michelangelo and his work, more and more ways of contextualizing them with society and history became available. We err if we think Michelangelo was universally admired in his lifetime. His David was stoned upon first being displayed. By societal template I mean a set of socialized codes for art and art judgment. Such templates change over time of course just as society changes (and the historian's job is to trace those changes) but on the whole I think we can say that they change at a different pace than do the "codes" of individuals (which can change quickly or not at all for innumerable reasons). There is no reason to assume that personal codes echo societal codes although they likely do in many instances. I may personally prefer Raphael's paintings over Michelangelo's paintings but it would be difficult for me to claim that Raphael was the better artist if we demand the "polymath" personality as a feature of the most accomplished Renaissance artist. Yes, Michelangelo had specific attributes that few others have, including a handsome face (based on his self-portrait) Lucky for him that the template or code for excellence in his time (and afterwards becoming a model for measuring excellence in other art) happened to be in effect not only during his life but afterwards. There may have been --likely were -- other artists of extraordinary attributes who were excluded by the template. Mostly they are forgotten or known only to specialists and their work is considered minor. People did and do not say they were geniuses. I am claiming that there is no possibility for designating or recognizing genus unless some measure of it is established. How does this "sign" of genius become evident? Does it already exist before one makes it or does it come into being as one defines it? I suspect that many people are considered geniuses because they have a handsome face. There is nothing pre-determined to prevent the attribution of genius to anyone. If we could somehow get one million people to say why they regard M. as a genius I think we would find one million reasons if we could really elucidate them fully. So, yes, M. was a genius because someone out there claims it on the basis of M's. handsome face. A societal template might be devised that averages all of the different reasons one million people say M. was a genius and then adding up all the reasons that seem to be most similar). I say that the majority of reasons now would be no more justifiable than anyone's reason except for a vague consensus (based on the reality of one million different reasons). As an aside for the sake of exemplifying the lack of coherent justifications for assigning values, studies show that taller people are more successful in careers than shorter people. Obviously being taller is part of being handsomer and success (a societal component of genius) is enabled by it. Genius is like the story of Cinderella's shoe. She was nothing until the shoe fit her. Because it did she was a princess. Van Gogh was not a genius until the template for it fit him. Before 1904 he was a madman and a clumsy amateur painter according to the then preferred template. the day may come when Michelangelo will lose his genius. He won't be the first. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: Boris Shoshensky <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, October 11, 2010 12:06:31 PM Subject: Re: is aesthetics dead? OK. Michelangelo did not have talent or genius. It is just accidentally millions ascribed it to him for his handsome face. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: is aesthetics dead? Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 10:44:17 -0700 (PDT) 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?
