yes there are no objective criteria -what the critic does is attempt to c both contextually make sense of a work of art, then to evaluate it on the basis of the criteria the work claims, or establishes for itself - and then argues from the position of their own criteria if such a work has value based on the critic's clearly articulated position and rational - after that all is open to debate - as it is in all other fields of operations in which criticism plays a role
As for meaning it is what you make of it given your competence and literacy On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 9:31 AM, William Conger <[email protected]>wrote: > Another dumb article, redundant and boring in itself. It ends with the > vacuous > statement that artworks convey meaning. > > An object, including a word or an artwork, cannot 'convey' meaning. > Meaning is > an invention of the mind. Things in the world are meaningless. > wc > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: joseph berg <[email protected]> > To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Mon, August 20, 2012 4:12:29 AM > Subject: "...There can be no art criticism because there is no criteria > from > which to make criticism." > > http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14006&page=0 > > -- S a u l O s t r o w *Critical Voices* 21STREETPROJECTS 162 West 21 St NYC, NY 10011 [email protected]
