On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 5:57 AM, Michael Brady <[email protected]>wrote:
> I've been preoccupied lately by two ideas that I believe are related: > > Error > Quality > > First, specifically, why is there error? Not, how does an error occur? Nor > am > I interested in the teleological answere that error produces diversity, > which > is a good thing (and which strikes me as a circular argument). Why is there > error? Why is there no perfect duplication or action? > > Second, why is it that some people cannot discern or distinguish the > limits of > lesser quality? Why do some people accept an artful production (music, > dance, > painting, etc.) as suitable and highly accomplished when it isn't? I am not > picking a quarrel with gauche taste and making a case for more art > education. > I am interested in the process or mechanism or explanation of why it is > that > some people cannot distinguish between the mediocre and the high quality. > As far as I am concerned, once people start believing that there is no such thing as error, then that's not only the beginning of the end of quality, but also the beginning of the end of art: - ...One can only reach the conclusion that everything is possible and nothing impossible. Prima donna assoluta Renata Tebaldi on the current confused state of opera where seemingly anything goes
