How can something immaterial and thus not measurable be proclaimed as if it has been measured? How can one decide that R was the "better painter" and M. the "more sophisticated soul" when those traits are not the same and both are immaterial anyway? The only recourse is opinion; in this case Boris' opinion. He may find a slew of other opinions both current and recorded from the past to bolster his opinion but absent actual measuring and without an objective way to link quality to measure, he has no objective way to support his triumphal decision. He tries to say that M's abstraction of the body proves his "more sophisticated soul" but how? Does the un-abstracted body prove an "unsophisticated soul"? And what of R's abstraction? His "dynamic" mode of composition, which links different shapes in illusory space by means of lines that organize a two-dimensional pictorial harmony is certainly sophisticated and had enormous influence down to today. Does that lessen his "soul"?
Such questions can be asked ad-infinitum and go only to ad-absurdum. There is no rebuttal to them because one cannot measure something immaterial as if it were. How long is the soul? How wide is sophistication? How many exaggerations to the measurable body add up to "the purposely distorted beauty" of something. Whatever the merits of M and R in terms of painterly skills and sophisticated soulfulness, they are the unstable assessments of people who were not M and R. Self-proclamation is socially worthless until confirmed by wider opinion. The only way to measure the immaterial is by some pseudo method; that is, creating a standard (a judgment) and then elucidating its features (also judgments) and then comparing and contrasting evidence (also subjectively selected) to see what matches and what doesn't and then debating ad-nauseum whether or not the standards are correct of the evidence was properly chosen. I would like Boris to support his claims objectively re M and R but there's really no point to that except to urge him to admit he can't without resorting to unique opinion of his own or to the collective and contentious opinions of others. It's fine to resort to opinion. But it's important to show how that opinion is arrived at and by what judgmental standards. It's a matter of persuasion that relies heavily on cultural codes (such as belief in a soul to justify saying "a sophisticated soul"). Most discussion in the humanities and arts is centered on persuasion that relies on opinions and that is fine and good. There are no other options anyway. So, again, I challenge Boris to back up his opinions with some reasoned appeal, some discursive persuasion. But his usual reply is just another personal proclamation, a thunderous and unsupported dictum. Not good enough for me. Not good enough for discourse. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: Boris Shoshensky <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, October 14, 2010 9:16:04 PM Subject: Re: is aesthetics dead? 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?
