Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!nessus
From: nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: Since when does a great artist have to be recognized?
Message-ID: <5172@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 1-Sep-85 19:31:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.5172
Posted: Sun Sep  1 19:31:49 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 2-Sep-85 09:39:10 EDT
Distribution: net.music
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 77

> [From Marcel Simon:]

> This is becoming a philosophical debate. Yes, a great artist that no
> one has never heard of is still a great artist. But since judging art
> is necessarily subjective, calling someone great implies familiarity
> with the work (if one is honest.) So a great artist who is totally
> unknown is a contradiction

I don't think it's a contradiction.  In my opinion, if Van Gogh had
lived alone on Mars, and not a single other human beinbg had seen his
work, he would have still been a great artist.  Of course, if that were
the case, I wouldn't being saying now that he was a great artist because
I would have never seen any of his paintings... But in my opionion, a
great artist is any artist who I would call great if I had the
opportunity of experiencing their art.

> (emphasize totally; I am not talking about someone with a small,
> dedicated circle of admirers, since such an artist is recognized
> within that circle, which in turns forms the basis for expanding
> popularity of said artist.)

I'm beg to differ -- I totally disagree with and object to the notion
that popularity has anything at all to do with how great an artist is.

> So although your statement is true in principle, without some absolute
> mechanism for evaluating art, it is untestable in practicce.

You are correct.  It is untestable in practice.  But who cares?  (I
don't...)  I don't much care about practicality.  Should we have MiniArt
to tell us who is a great artist and who isn't?  That would be
practical, wouldn't it?

> Now someone YOU have never heard of, but whose work is reasonably
> documented, is something else.Then you are talking about *your*
> recognizing artistic work, which does not of change its intrinsic
> worth (however you measure that,) only its relative worth with your
> system of art appreciation (which is different for everybody)

Well if by "intrinsic worth" you have some notion of objective or
absolute truth, you will have a hard time convincing me of it.  I don't
believe in such things.  There is no objective reality and there is no
absolute truth.... just people's opinions.  And since I'm me, mine is
the one that's right.  But all this is tempered by the fact that I don't
judge what I think is "good" art by how much I like it (though it's
still ultimately just my opinion -- but we've already had that
discussion already: see "good music vs. bad music").

> Your Van Gogh example is a good case in point. You *already know* his
> work, so saying that he would have been just as great is meaningless.

It's not meaningless!  I'm no logical positivist.  Unverifiable
statements have meaning in my system of meaning.

> If no one had heard of him, he would not have the influence on other
> painters that he has.  I have already told you that in my opinion, the
> most "objective" measure of artistic worth we have is the degree of
> influence on others

Well I don't agree with your subjective opinion about this being a good
"objective" measure.  So how objective does that make it?

> (insufficient though that measurement may be, the only other is the
> purely subjective "I think so, therefore it is," that Rosen and others
> are so intent on stamping out :-)

In that there is no such thing as objective truth, I think that they
will have a difficult time doing that (if that's really what they want
to do).  Any argument is basically "I think so there for it is", but a
good argument gives reasons and outlines the thought processes involved
in arriving at the conclusion so that you can see where the person is
coming from and perhaps think it through in the same manner.

		"Some say that knowledge is something sat in your lap
		 Some say that knowledge is something that you never have"

		 Doug Alan
		  nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA)