You never can tell who will do what badly. There are several painters
or illustrators who stopped what they were known for and started
making work for art's sake and didn't do as well-mucha,Rockwell,nc
Wyeth ,and of course sir William Gilbert wrote" real operas". Vasari
mentions several who got carried away by art also.
Kate Sullivan
Sent from my iPod
On Sep 9, 2011, at 6:09 PM, [email protected] wrote:
I certainly could benefit from a lot more clarification, but this
thought
persists in my head: The fact that Van Gogh's and Godel's work
primarily went
on in their heads, in their brains, would not justify me in saying
therefore they must both be the product of something called
"intellect" and thus
they must both be "the same" in any useful way. I still suspect it's
more
useful for us as aestheticians to look into the differences.
When I see the word 'intellect', the notion that arises in my mind
has much
in common with my "high intelligence" notion, but the two notions
tend not
to be identical. Very roughly I may be able to convey it this way: My
'intellect' notion varies somewhat with the context, but the core of
it is
something like "the ability to think", while 'high intelligence'
stirs "ability to
think at a high level across a broad range range". I admit the
distinction
feels fuzzy, (but all notion is fuzzy to an extent), however it has
its
serviceability.
But I also feel the brain produces elements of consciousness that
don't
feel like the exclusive product of intellect. An example is my
"aesthetic
experiences". My reactions to objects I'd call "beautiful" seem to
arise from
parts of the brain that have little do with cogitation, ratiocination,
intellect. Put more broadly: Those reactions arise not out of logic
but out of
"sensibility". I do agree with William's argument that "taste/style"
can be
learned insofar as it's information about things that are or were
approved by
accepted "sophisticates".
But I don't think of "taste/style" as identical to sensibility or
imagination. My guess is that almost all of us on this forum have
had this personal
experience as children: Our very first encounter with a specimen of
a genre -
far earlier than we'd had any education or training in that genre -
resulted in, in effect, an "aesthetic experience". A while ago I
recounted on the
forum something a famous dancer told me as we were publishing her
autobiography. She said that before her parents took her to see a
ballet, "I had no
idea people did this." But with this, her initial knowledge, initial
exposure
to ballet, she was immediately and ecstatically transported, and
knew this
would be her life's devotion.
I don't think that, as an adult, one can "learn" the sensibility that
reacts with what I'm calling an "aesthetic experience" to certain
works by
Mozart, Van Gogh, Auden, Pavarotti, Shakespeare, Dickinson, et al.
So it's a corollary that a person of "high intelligence" can lack
"sensibility". And, to repeat, my own experience has told me that
you can often
simultaneously have great strengths at the first and great
weaknesses at the
second.
I tried to describe what I called "high intelligence" as the
workings of
the brain that result in high scores across the range of academic
disciplines,
I summoned the image of a woman with a summa performance in all her
academic efforts. I still maintain there seems to be no strong
correlation between
that broad range of "intellectual gifts" and creativity in "art".
I base that judgment on extensive study of the lives of people
accepted as
accomplished in the "arts", and, perhaps more persuasive, I base it
on my
personal acquaintance with a good number of those "summa" people. My
acquaintance includes, but is not limited to, people whom I have
edited. I've been
regularly startled by seeing a "brilliant mind" dismally obtuse
about his or
her shortcomings in "creative arts". One can be taught the "craft",
but not
the "art". And this is in part because there is nothing you can
learn
that will create within you sensibility. I've seen what I felt to be
superb
critics, editors, and scholars of "creative artists" try their hand
at that
kind of creation and fail by a wide margin.
I will read with attention all responses to these last two postings of
mine. But I confess that if I discern the responder is bent only on
finding
what's wrong, I'll know I can't benefit from his remarks nearly as
much as from
those of someone who also is able to register when something is
right or
interesting. This isn't because I want only approval. I'm sure I've
gone wrong
more than once - and I want to be told about my bungles - I continue
to be
almost suspiciously non-brittle. But I'm sure that not everything
I've said
here is wrong, and I'll know that anyone who feels it IS all wrong
does not
have either the intellect or sensibility - or fair-mindedness -- to
be taken
seriously.
