It's not the selection of good art but the determination of good art. That's quite a difference. It's also why so much "good art" is so bad. wc
----- Original Message ---- From: ARMANDO BAEZA <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, March 23, 2011 10:47:42 PM Subject: Re: "Today we often confuse certification with education. In fact our society seems to value the former more than the latter..." Evidently you are unaware of the influential power that money has in the selection on what is good art. mando ________________________________ From: Frances Kelly <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, March 23, 2011 6:39:29 PM Subject: RE: "Today we often confuse certification with education. In fact our society seems to value the former more than the latter..." Frances to Armando and others... The "supreme court of taste to judge" art or nonart as being bad or good is the very creative interpretation that percipients use to sense art in the first place. The interpretation is the interpretant effect that the art yields. It is the instrumental law in mind which provides some assurance that the formal quality of the art conforms to its referential fact. The individual artist is constantly making such judgements as to the making of their art. Even wicked maniacs nonetheless can attempt to be creative and attempt to make art. The choice of whether nonart is art, or whether art is bad or good, cannot remain with any individual percipient, because the individual mind is simply unreliable. The individual artist after all is not absolutely free to do whatever they want and to call anything art, let alone good art. The artistic community however will eventually determine by an agreed interpretive judgement if the art of any individual conforms and is normal. If an ordinary object is deemed by experts to be an extraordinary aesthetic object of art or even to be good art, then that good art becomes an objective fact, independent of and regardless of what any individual mind may subsequently think of it. The ultimate object of such good art is what pragmatists call reality. The good art must thus be taken by all minds as it is given by the collective community to the individual mind, and not as the individual mind may wish it or need it or want it. One of my thorns is whether an object already deemed as some kind of art and thus as good art can then be deemed as being bad art. The solution to this problem may be to deem all empowered aesthetic objects as being good intrinsically by virtue of their successful aesthetic candidacy. All ordinary objects of nonart that bear or have aesthetic properties in any event may therefore fail to become empowered as extraordinary aesthetic objects, whether of nature or of culture and thus of art. The conclusion here would be that any extraordinary object of art would necessarily be good by virtue of simply being empowered as an aesthetic object. The empowerment would be the result of an ordinary object having the force in its aesthetic form to reflect natural aesthetic values that are worthy and to evoke intense aesthetic responses that are worthwhile both individually and communally. Armando wrote... I think we give too much importance to Good or Bad. The important thing is to encourage creativity. We don't need a Supreme Court of Taste to judge.
