Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mfs
From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: Since when does a great artist have to be recognized?
Message-ID: <418@mhuxr.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 3-Sep-85 08:51:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: mhuxr.418
Posted: Tue Sep  3 08:51:25 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 4-Sep-85 06:41:34 EDT
References: <5172@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Distribution: net.music
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 48

> [From Doug Alan:]
> > ME
> >                             .... 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 being 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.
> 
The point, Doug, is not to say that something is great, but to say WHY
it is great in your value system. So a statement like your last sentence
is meaningless. We know that already, it is true of all of us. This discussion
is about the process by which you say something is great.

I argue that the only semi objective measure of greatness we have, however
imperfect it may be, is influence on others and critical recognition,
allowing suficient evaluation time to eliminate distortions caused by
popular tastes during the artist's life. You
>                  ..... totally disagree with and object to the notion
> that popularity has anything at all to do with how great an artist is.
> 
Very well. So how do you decide that an artist is great?

> 
>                          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 ..... )

You just said that a great artist is whomever you
would call great, but now you say you don't judge "good" art by your likes
and dislikes. I admit to being confused. What do you judge art by?

>          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.
  
But you have not done so. I keep asking you to, but you give me contradictory
statements and generalities. What are YOUR "reasons and outlines and thought
processes involved in arriving at the conclusion"??

Marcel Simon