Perhaps when it comes to all the arts,quality is a measurement that is reflected in all individuals differently.
armando b On Nov 24, 2012, at 12:11 AM, joseph berg wrote: > On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 5:57 AM, Michael Brady > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I've been preoccupied lately by two ideas that I believe are related: >> >> Error >> Quality >> >> First, specifically, why is there error? Not, how does an error occur? Nor >> am >> I interested in the teleological answere that error produces diversity, >> which >> is a good thing (and which strikes me as a circular argument). Why is there >> error? Why is there no perfect duplication or action? >> >> Second, why is it that some people cannot discern or distinguish the >> limits of >> lesser quality? Why do some people accept an artful production (music, >> dance, >> painting, etc.) as suitable and highly accomplished when it isn't? I am not >> picking a quarrel with gauche taste and making a case for more art >> education. >> I am interested in the process or mechanism or explanation of why it is >> that >> some people cannot distinguish between the mediocre and the high quality. >> > > > As far as I am concerned, once people start believing that there is no such > thing as error, then that's not only the beginning of the end of quality, > but also the beginning of the end of art: > > - ...One can only reach the conclusion that everything is possible and > nothing impossible. > > Prima donna assoluta Renata Tebaldi on the current confused state of opera > where seemingly anything goes
