Rainer Deyke wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Rainer Deyke wrote:
His entire argument seems to hinge on the idea that the difference
between a good artist and a bad artist is that the better artist has
better taste. Which is complete and utter bullshit. The good artist is
good because he has the skill to better express his taste, not because
his taste itself is superior. He can create things that are more
beautiful (a technical skill), but only for his own sense of beauty.
I'm not sure. Actually to be frank I completely disagree. I'm trained in
music and my father is an architect and painter; I see/hear plenty of
work by artists that technically are very skilled but have poor taste.
That statement pretty much presumes that you are qualified to judge
other people's taste. In other words, if you don't like it, then it's
objectively bad. Your own taste is objectively perfect, and the closer
some other person's taste resembles your own, the better it is.
Well it's exactly the point of the article that you oughtn't fall into
the other extreme. If you did, Da Vinci would not be distinguishable
from Ghirlandaio nor Porsche would be from Cadillac nor Bach would be
from Boccherini.
Even if I did believe in an objective measure of taste, I wouldn't
believe that your taste is the platonic ideal to which we should aspire.
That doesn't mean you need to commit to relativism.
The ability to enjoy a work of art (i.e. "taste") is one thing, the
ability to create a work of art that is enjoyed is another. The former
is subjective, the latter presumes the former but is otherwise a
technical skill.
That I agree with, but it doesn't add to your argument. In fact it adds
to mine.
Andrei
