OK. Boris does not want to examine the idea but to reject it on solipsistic grounds. Maybe it's because he resents any implication that free-individualism is shaped by cultural habits. I don't have a clue as to what the mumbo-jumbo regarding evolution means except everything changes.
----- Original Message ---- From: Boris Shoshensky <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Fri, December 17, 2010 11:18:22 AM Subject: Re: the boring false opposition between money and art William's challenge on artists is incorrect, in my case. I did not have any info on John Marin or Demuth before I saw the work and instantly was intrigued by the talent. If I was only influenced by institutional or cultural canon I would not appreciate mostly unknown folk arts of different cultures, including music and dance, and would like crap dominating present institutionalized culture. I am cold to Warhol and many others regardless 'experts' praises. I was fascinated by Russian Avant-Guard instantly, being very young and uneducated in modernity which was forbidden to be shown even in print in the USSR. Before I go to the second question I have to correct your distortion of my phrase which changes the meaning of what I said. I said I believe in objective criteria not standards. There is a difference, for me. My use of 'I believe' is different from 'I have belief'. It is 'I know', but subjectively, because it based on my professional observations and not on cold scientific research. Independent criteria of beauty is its anti-entropic organizational quality leading to the evolutional progress of matter and mind. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: the boring false opposition between money and art Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:52:37 -0800 (PST) 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
