Yeah, Kate, I wonder about this stuff. The Ren artists were first class illustrators and they relied on stock images to cast and stage their visual narratives. They were appealing to a popular audience along with presenting their 'sacred conversation' to their patrons.
Raphael was a good, dressed up, civilized artist, an artist for the well-behaved, solid citizen. Michelangelo was a risky, dangerous guy, ready to upset the crowd and insult his patrons. Raphael was Sunday-go-to-meetin' guy; Michelangelo was a Saturday night freak. When I visited the Parthenon daily during a trip to Rome there someone had secretly laid fresh roses at Raphael's tomb there every single morning. Maybe it still happens. Only a beloved, gentle artist earns such daily grace. Not Michelangelo. He deserves equal attention but roses would seem too timid. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, August 20, 2012 7:45:40 PM Subject: Re: "...There can be no art criticism because there is no criteria from which to make criticism." Wouldn't this only be possible if RAphael had heard of kitschy illustration? Although I suppose there were enough sentimental religious woodcuts around so you could argue he at least had the concept. Kate Sullivan -----Original Message----- From: William Conger <[email protected]> To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2012 5:44 pm Subject: Re: "...There can be no art criticism because there is no criteria from which to make criticism." One could argue the criteria Raphael's The School of Athens claims for itself is kitschy illustration. What happens the the 'criteria the work claims' is vastly inferior or superior to the criteria claimed by the critic...or the artist? WC ----- Original Message ---- From: saulostrow <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, August 20, 2012 11:57:48 AM Subject: Re: "...There can be no art criticism because there is no criteria from which to make criticism." 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]
