A ridiculous and abused excerpt from Ruskin.  Anyone who knows much about art 
learns rather quickly that totalizing presumptions and efforts to index the 
traits of 'great art' are open invitations to embarrassing contradiction. 
 Renaissance theorist and architect  Leon Alberti defined beauty in art as 
perfection is all parts so that nothing can be changed except for the worse. 
 Northern Renaissance painting developed an exquisitely uniform attention to 
detail in all parts of a composition as a way to lead the viewer into deeper 
and 
deeper perception of reality as if moving into it over time. (See S. Alpers for 
a cogent argument distinguishing Northern art codes from Italian art codes). 
 Ruskin's romantic view stems from a popular notion about the immediacy 
incompleteness that has roots in the ancient idea that it is a good way to 
engage the viewer, especially in portraiture, to suggest rather than show in 
order to allow the viewer to see (project) what is already believed.  What is 
recognized today as a fundamental of psychological perception was 
well-understood long before in folk-science.   Faced with vague suggestions as 
to what a person (or self) looks like the viewer 'completes and corrects' the 
image by projecting subjectivity. That is one mode of deductive practice.  It 
has no inherent link to 'greatness' which of course is a cultural-political 
value, open to constant change.

 The issue is not if a particular approach to art process is a trait of 
greatness. That's really a circular argument because one needs to know what 
greatness consists of before naming its separate elements.  If 'greatness' 
consists of immediacy of apprehension and psychological completion then a 
diverse pattern of 'finished and unfinished' shapes will do the job if and only 
if it's already agreed that certain elements (reflecting a cultural-political 
code)  are great and others are not. At issue is what kinds of perception are 
structured by different processes.  

I would prefer that Mr. Berg give some attention to smart interpretation of the 
various quotes he selects or paraphrases over what seem to be selections chosen 
to support his own unrefective views with decontextualized -- and therefore 
irrelevant -- quotes taken from celebrity authors.  I've read a lot of Ruskin's 
writing on art and some of it is very insightful and useful.  But he fell 
victim 
to his own genius and like a mad scientist he rearranged the facts of 
observation to fit his predetermined taste...and fascination for the 
pre-impressionism of Turner. That's fine for a critic making poetic 
interpretations but it is deadly and stupid as science or philosophy.

Mr. Berg always responds to any comment with yet another insipidly annoying 
quotation of of context, pretending, always, to presume that the author's fame 
or worthiness will justify whatever foolish role he demands of them. 

wc 


----- Original Message ----
From: joseph berg <[email protected]>
To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]>
Sent: Sun, June 17, 2012 1:23:07 AM
Subject: "For what Ruskin said of the difference between a great  painter, like 
Tintoretto, and a low painter, like Teniers, holds for  every manifestation of 
life: the inferior painter, not recognizing the  difference between high and 
low, between what is inten

*"For what Ruskin said of the difference* between a great painter, like
Tintoretto, and a low painter, like Teniers, holds for every manifestation
of life: the inferior painter, not recognizing the difference between high
and low, *between what is intensely moving and what is emotionally inert,
gives every part of his painting the same refinement of finish, the same
care of detail.  The great painter, on the other hand, knows that life is
too short to treat every part of it with equal care: so he concentrates on
the passages of maximum significane and treats hastily, even
contemptuously, the minor passages: his shortcuts and simplifications are
an effort to give a better account of what matters.  This reduction of
essentials is the main art of life."*

"Conduct of Life" (1951,Mumford)

http://books.google.com/books?id=YQmxAAAAIAAJ&q=%22essentials+is+the+main+art+of+life%22&dq=%22essentials+is+the+main+art+of+life%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nXbdT4_ZH6fN6QGkiaWrCw&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAA

Reply via email to