Boris; Your comments seem to confirm my argument that we tend to prefer the art we've been told is good, not only by individuals in our midst but by the canonic standards of art history. All to the artists you mention are artists whose work has been widely, even universally, discussed as excellent within the canon of Western art. So how can you be sure your opinions of that work are free from institutional and cultural influence that even predetermine those opinions? I say you can't.
Further, I am puzzled by your statement that you "believe" in objective standards of beauty and thought. If such standards exist why is it necessary to believe in them? Ordinarily we distinguish between believing and knowing. Believing is accepting something as true without sufficient independent evidence where as knowing is a result of validating independent evidence. For instance we can say we "believe" that a human has an immortal soul but we "know" that human life is mortal. Needless to say, I'd be interested in what those independent criterion of beauty in art and thought are. So far, it seems that no one in history has ever identified them. WC ----- Original Message ---- From: Boris Shoshensky <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, December 16, 2010 11:28:55 AM Subject: Re: the boring false opposition between money and art I have seen Durer, English of 19Th c., Rodin, Sargent, Homer, Marin, Cezanne. I don't need experts to appreciate all of them in different ways. I believe in objective criterias of beauty in art and thought. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: the boring false opposition between money and art Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 13:08:26 -0800 (PST) What watercolors had you seen before seeing Nolde's? But then you are one of the experts anyway. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: Boris Shoshensky <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, December 15, 2010 1:43:35 PM Subject: Re: the boring false opposition between money and art Holistic approach to art and art history. Nobody taught me to love Nolde's watercolors. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: the boring false opposition between money and art Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:55:57 -0800 (PST) He wasn't lucky. A few recognized his genius and had the power to spread his fame through word (see Vasari) and deeds (see papal patronage). His universal fame came after that, not always so quickly (the first reception of his David was negative among crowds). It's the same process as now: excellence accorded by the few, later, maybe, by the many who mostly learned from or imitated the few. I don't know of a case (in Western art history) in which it was other way around. Maybe you do. wc Then how came Michelangelo is so lucky? Boris Shoshensky
