I'm nailing this post to my computer desk. wc
________________________________ From: Michael Brady <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2009 10:22:20 AM Subject: Re: Judging the late Titian On Apr 6, 2009, at 9:15 PM, [email protected] wrote: > William's position on the precedence due the "judgment" of learned art > historians and critics is as arbitrary and vacuous as Frances's was. There is > in the ASA forum's archive an abundance of effective rebuttal of Frances's > position, and all of it applies to William's current stance. > > It's understandable that William should be vexed at seeing others, not nearly > so learned as he, reverence their own opinion more than they do his, but the > history of aesthetics is stained by how often "experts' judgments" have been > disdained by later experts as the "objective" standards on which the earlier > experts based their judgments were shown to be not just arbitrary but > sterile. In my current field, theater, there have been "objective" standards > such as the rules for a "well-made play" that have come to be seen as > inapplicable to what makes a theatrical work prizable by many of us. > > I agree with Miller when he rejects similar allegedly objective citations by > William of, say, criteria for compositional excellence, that William > evidently feels in some way "proves" Titian's "Diana and Callisto" is above > reproach by others less learned than he. This is mostly a Miller's Tale, and Mando just got caught up in it by an casual remark on the rebound. In this discussion of Titian, and in many others, Miller specifically speaks out, not by offering an informed opposition to William's statements, but by impugning the integrity both of the scholarship and the moral character of scholars, curators, artists, and others who work in the different institutions of art--and personally of William. They are the kept souls, pawns or dupes or active participants with the vile forces of crass commerce and self-congratulating power. He claims that he can educate himself (how? from whom? from what sources?) and hone his aesthetic awareness, taste, and ultimately judgment independently of the mainline art world. But this is merely a misdirection, intended to take our attention off his main purpose, maligning art historians, critics, curators, and even artists. When William writes on any art topic--and on most cultural topics--he writes with knowledge of current and historical facts, and he writes with clarity and evident familiarity and understanding of the topics. His messages are always worth paying attention to. It's a mark of true humility for an intelligent listener to acknowledge the cogency of his comments. That doesn't mean that everyone must agree with William, but everyone should respond with an equal appreciation for the facts, for the logic of arguments, for reasonable clarity of expression. Miller doesn't do that. Instead, he claims the supremacy of autonomous experience. BFD. Everyone has experiences. When it comes to the topic at hand, he announced "Before launching an attack on Titian's late work" and then, after a few left-handed dismissals of the paintings, proceeds to say "We [William and he] just have a different idea as to what qualifies as 'most informed' [about aesthetic judgment].'" In other words, it doesn't matter what others who have taken a long career studying Titian have to say, when he has an opinion, too. And besides, art scholars aren't to be trusted. This isn't a matter of some outsider or naif offering some unexpected insight, of some nonexpert speaking out of turn, or of a professor taking umbrage at others who "reverence their own opinion more than they do his." (That's beneath you.) It's a matter of conducting our discussions with more respect and intelligence than Miller bothers with. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady [email protected]
