I think Cheerskep is very wrong in his assumption that 'sophisticated people' assume a 'fact of the matter' or inherent essence re quality in art.
I think sophisticated art folks are well aware of the poststructuralist turn in the arts, now lasting over 20 years. Cheerskep's favorite trope is actually old hat in the art and lit world. Quality must be a condition of 'text' and text is separate from the work; text is always constructed subjectively and has no ontological existence. I think the go-to guy here is Barthes. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: Tom McCormack <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, November 12, 2012 4:55:58 PM Subject: Error and quality Underlying Michael's question -- Why is it people can't distinguish between "mediocrity" and "high quality" in "Art" -- is the assumption that there is a "fact of the matter" about the "quality" in any given work. "Sophisticated" people regularly assume there is such a "fact of the matter", and usually their response to anyone who disagrees is a sneer: "Well, if you can't see that WAITING FOR GODOT is high quality art, God help you." If such a savant does move beyond sneer to specifying alleged evidence, the evidence always can be ultimately exposed as a stipulation and not a mind-independent "fact of the matter". Even then the stipulation is usually vulnerable to reasonable dispute. Take Michael's suggested example -- great replication. When "is" something "great replication"?
