"Men do not know why they award fame to one work of art rather than
another." --Thomas Mann
But spend a lot of time justifying their choices and trying to 'know.'
Thomas Mann is correct. Largely because an aesthetic absolute,
against which works of art may be evaluated and placed in a
heirarchy of value, does not exist.
Plato and most of the other Greeks would disagree, I think. And many since.
Therefore art criticism can be nothing more than expressions of
personal preference. To which ALL--however brilliant or stupid--are
entitled.
And some expressions are well reasoned, beyond mere opinion or
stances on personal taste. And what 'entitles' all to an expression?
Related to this is that virtually any work of art (or proposition,
for that matter) can be successfully defended or attacked, provided
one has a sufficient grasp of rhetoric. Smoke & mirrors, in other
words.
SNIP
John Palcewski
Ah, now you're beginning to sound like Plato. It's all sophistry, hey?
Hmmmm.
AndrewF
