I want to object to Cheerskep's term "talentless bozo" for those he deems inept artists. I've never met an artist who had no desire to make an artwork -- to do something that qualifies as art by some standard, even an unknown standard -- because desire is the word taking the load here. No one should be castigated for ineptness if they have desire to do something. The desire itself is a great and virtuous human attribute. It is a means not to be judged by its end. No artist aims to be a talentless bozo. This caustic term says much about the one who uses it because it is primarily a prejudicial term that points to but does not reveal presumed standard of excellence known only to the speaker as a mark of his unassailable authority. Cheerskep has a background as an editor. He judged writing before it saw the light of day. Artists make artworks that do see the light of day and are judged afterward. It is tougher for an art critic to say so and so is a talentless bozo than it is for an editor who can prevent the evidence from being seen at all. wc
________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, January 15, 2013 11:45:33 AM Subject: Re: Art is money In a message dated 1/15/13 12:21:59 PM, [email protected] writes: > On Jan 15, 2013, at 11:57 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > > But I might say, "In this conversation I will use the word 'art' to > label > > all and only those works that give me what I think of as an aesthetic > > experience." > > What about the works or objects that provoke in you an uninspiring or > uncomplimentary reaction, i.e., works that you don't think well of, that > you > don't like? Isn't that negative reaction an AE? Would you call those works > "art," and thus would you call Waiting for Godot a WoA because it > engendered a > negative AE? > > No, I myself wouldn't. I'm aware there are those who believe in the "existence" of "bad art", or they simply are adopting an arbitrary word-use with no ontic implications: Focusing on the intentions of a faulty creator, they stipulate that if he "intended to produce a work of art" then it shall be called a work of art, albeit it a bad one. I don't go that way because if I ever use the word 'art' I'd like it to be in an approving, honorific way. I recoil from calling "art" every careless, botched rendering by talentless bozos. (Realize: There's no right or wrong here. There is no "the" "correct" meaning of 'art'.)
