--part1_88.b25a256.28b2fc8e_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Jon,
Very eloquently put (below).
Steve, I'm going to answer your post but needed to think about some of the
questions you asked.
pat
================================================
In a message dated 8/20/01 7:09:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
> Subj:Re: Definition of art
> Date:8/20/01 7:09:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> From: [log in to unmask] (Jon Rouse)
> Sender: [log in to unmask]
> Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
> Steve wrote:
>
> > Now, here's the problem: I think TSE wanted to say not only that he was
> > judging art by his pet standard (Classicism), but, more importantly, that
> HIS
> > standard was "better" than other standards (better than, for instance, the
> > standard of WCW). Because if all standards are arbitrary and equally
> valid,
> > it seems to me impossible to say that any particular thing is "not art"
> > (since by SOME standard you could find a basis for which THAT thing WOULD
> be
> > art). So Jon, even if I agree that art is defined by "an accepted
> standard
> > within a culture or a time-period", is there a way to make distinctions
> among
> > competing standards? Is there a way to say that one standard is "better"
> > than another? What would the word "better" even mean when looking at
> > different aesthetic standards? More "true" to the human condition,
> perhaps?
> Steve,
>
> I think Pat and Nancy have already addressed many of the issues here in a
> way that I need not add more to. If anything, I would like to simplify,
> rather than complicate the issue.
>
> There is a canon out there, I think we're both agreed on that, but it isn't
> a universal one, and different people have different standards within it.
> I'm not great at maths, but I tend to look at Art as a big Venn diagram.
> There is a canon of Art out there, and within that canon are a multitude of
> sub-groups, some of which overlap, some of which never connect, some of
> which are wholly contained within a larger group.
>
> As for ways of making distinctions between which Art is 'better', that
> really depends where you are within the Venn diagram. For instance,
> everybody on this list has *at least some* interest in TSE, and therefore
> presumably considers him 'better' than some, if not all, other poets.
> Subscribers to a similar Shelley list will have a different slant. The
> groups may overlap a bit, but we'll probably have different notions about
> 'good art'. Equally, because we're interested in TSE, we're that much more
> likely to explore his sources than other people may be - Dante being the
> most obvious beneficiary of this. We share a common pool of sources that
> we're perhaps prepared to give more time and patience to than non-TSE
> readers. There's probably a generic, superficial agreement on this list
> about at least some of what constitutes 'good poetry' that would bear little
> relation to the poets chosen by a list of Wordworth or Spenser readers.
> This is not so different to what you were saying to Pat about your son.
> People on this list will hear a lot of discussion about poets such as Dante
> and Pound, go off and explore them if they haven't done so previously, and
> be more receptive to them afterwards. I've certainly never seen a post on
> this list saying, 'Ezra is rubbish and shouldn't be considered Art'; but
> it's probably happened on another list.
>
> There is no absolute standard to Art (otherwise we'd have nothing to argue
> about, and we'd all 'know' what the greats works were without any dispute),
> so whether anything is 'better' really comes down to personal preference or
> prejudice (ie where one is - and where one's friends are - in the Venn
> diagram); and how loudly one is prepared to shout about that and declaim
> other things as Not Art is perhaps as much a matter of psychology and
> territoriality as it is relative to objective notions of Art. If, as you
> asked in your reply to Pat, TSE's position was Absolutist, no, I personally
> don't think that (or indeed any other Absolutist position) is defensible.
> Comprehensible, but not defensible.
>
> As a last point, I always find it worth remembering that free time is
> finite, and the Art corpus very large. I may consider TSE as one of the
> pinnacles of literature, but I am equally conscious that it's not impossible
> that I'm so locked into this that I'm missing out on the 16-year old rap
> poet down at the local pub on a rainy Wednesday night, who might blow my
> mind away with her brilliance, only I've never actually going to bother
> going to see her, because it's not naturally my cup of tea. Whatever else
> Art may be, one can only usefully discuss that which you have
> seen/read/heard, and been receptive to at the time, and there's a far larger
> world out there which an individual can never have time to take on board.
> TSE may be one of the 'best' I've read; that says nothing about whether he's
> one of the 'best' there is; which alone is sufficient to make me cautious
> about Absolutist pronouncements.
>
> Jon
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
> Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]>
> Received: from rly-xd04.mx.aol.com (rly-xd04.mail.aol.com
> [172.20.105.169]) by air-xd03.mail.aol.com (v80.17) with ESMTP id
> MAILINXD37-0820190928; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 19:09:28 -0400
> Received: from po.missouri.edu (po.missouri.edu [128.206.12.137]) by
> rly-xd04.mx.aol.com (v80.17) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXD49-0820190849; Mon,
> 20 Aug 2001 19:08:49 -0400
> Received: from host (localhost [127.0.0.1])
> by po.missouri.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA05678;
> Mon, 20 Aug 2001 18:08:45 -0500
> Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [195.147.246.100])
> by po.missouri.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA05462
> for <[log in to unmask]>; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 18:08:25 -0500
> Received: from p09s05a02.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.149.10]
> helo=atropos)
> by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 3.16 #1)
> id 15Yy9f-0001EW-00
> for [log in to unmask]; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 00:08:23 +0100
> Message-Id: <005901c129cc$9cfa4880$91e493c3@atropos>
> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 23:24:01 +0100
> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
> Sender: [log in to unmask]
> Precedence: bulk
> From: "Jon Rouse" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Definition of art
> References: <[log in to unmask]>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
> X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN
>
>
>
--part1_88.b25a256.28b2fc8e_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial Narrow" LANG="0"><B>Jon,
<BR>
<BR>Very eloquently put (below).
<BR>
<BR>Steve, I'm going to answer your post but needed to think about some of the
<BR>questions you asked.
<BR>
<BR>pat
<BR>================================================
<BR>
<BR>In a message dated 8/20/01 7:09:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
<BR>[log in to unmask] writes:
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Subj:<B>Re: Definition of art</B>
<BR>Date:8/20/01 7:09:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time
<BR>From: [log in to unmask] (Jon Rouse)
<BR>Sender: [log in to unmask]
<BR>Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A>
<BR>To: [log in to unmask]
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>Steve wrote:
<BR>
<BR>> Now, here's the problem: I think TSE wanted to say not only that he was
<BR>> judging art by his pet standard (Classicism), but, more importantly, that
<BR>HIS
<BR>> standard was "better" than other standards (better than, for instance, the
<BR>> standard of WCW). Because if all standards are arbitrary and equally
<BR>valid,
<BR>> it seems to me impossible to say that any particular thing is "not art"
<BR>> (since by SOME standard you could find a basis for which THAT thing WOULD
<BR>be
<BR>> art). So Jon, even if I agree that art is defined by "an accepted
<BR>standard
<BR>> within a culture or a time-period", is there a way to make distinctions
<BR>among
<BR>> competing standards? Is there a way to say that one standard is "better"
<BR>> than another? What would the word "better" even mean when looking at
<BR>> different aesthetic standards? More "true" to the human condition,
<BR>perhaps?
<BR>Steve,
<BR>
<BR>I think Pat and Nancy have already addressed many of the issues here in a
<BR>way that I need not add more to. If anything, I would like to simplify,
<BR>rather than complicate the issue.
<BR>
<BR>There is a canon out there, I think we're both agreed on that, but it isn't
<BR>a universal one, and different people have different standards within it.
<BR>I'm not great at maths, but I tend to look at Art as a big Venn diagram.
<BR>There is a canon of Art out there, and within that canon are a multitude of
<BR>sub-groups, some of which overlap, some of which never connect, some of
<BR>which are wholly contained within a larger group.
<BR>
<BR>As for ways of making distinctions between which Art is 'better', that
<BR>really depends where you are within the Venn diagram. For instance,
<BR>everybody on this list has *at least some* interest in TSE, and therefore
<BR>presumably considers him 'better' than some, if not all, other poets.
<BR>Subscribers to a similar Shelley list will have a different slant. The
<BR>groups may overlap a bit, but we'll probably have different notions about
<BR>'good art'. Equally, because we're interested in TSE, we're that much more
<BR>likely to explore his sources than other people may be - Dante being the
<BR>most obvious beneficiary of this. We share a common pool of sources that
<BR>we're perhaps prepared to give more time and patience to than non-TSE
<BR>readers. There's probably a generic, superficial agreement on this list
<BR>about at least some of what constitutes 'good poetry' that would bear little
<BR>relation to the poets chosen by a list of Wordworth or Spenser readers.
<BR>This is not so different to what you were saying to Pat about your son.
<BR>People on this list will hear a lot of discussion about poets such as Dante
<BR>and Pound, go off and explore them if they haven't done so previously, and
<BR>be more receptive to them afterwards. I've certainly never seen a post on
<BR>this list saying, 'Ezra is rubbish and shouldn't be considered Art'; but
<BR>it's probably happened on another list.
<BR>
<BR>There is no absolute standard to Art (otherwise we'd have nothing to argue
<BR>about, and we'd all 'know' what the greats works were without any dispute),
<BR>so whether anything is 'better' really comes down to personal preference or
<BR>prejudice (ie where one is - and where one's friends are - in the Venn
<BR>diagram); and how loudly one is prepared to shout about that and declaim
<BR>other things as Not Art is perhaps as much a matter of psychology and
<BR>territoriality as it is relative to objective notions of Art. If, as you
<BR>asked in your reply to Pat, TSE's position was Absolutist, no, I personally
<BR>don't think that (or indeed any other Absolutist position) is defensible.
<BR>Comprehensible, but not defensible.
<BR>
<BR>As a last point, I always find it worth remembering that free time is
<BR>finite, and the Art corpus very large. I may consider TSE as one of the
<BR>pinnacles of literature, but I am equally conscious that it's not impossible
<BR>that I'm so locked into this that I'm missing out on the 16-year old rap
<BR>poet down at the local pub on a rainy Wednesday night, who might blow my
<BR>mind away with her brilliance, only I've never actually going to bother
<BR>going to see her, because it's not naturally my cup of tea. Whatever else
<BR>Art may be, one can only usefully discuss that which you have
<BR>seen/read/heard, and been receptive to at the time, and there's a far larger
<BR>world out there which an individual can never have time to take on board.
<BR>TSE may be one of the 'best' I've read; that says nothing about whether he's
<BR>one of the 'best' there is; which alone is sufficient to make me cautious
<BR>about Absolutist pronouncements.
<BR>
<BR>Jon
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0f0f0f" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR>
<BR>----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
<BR>Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]>
<BR>Received: from rly-xd04.mx.aol.com (rly-xd04.mail.aol.com
<BR>[172.20.105.169]) by air-xd03.mail.aol.com (v80.17) with ESMTP id
<BR>MAILINXD37-0820190928; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 19:09:28 -0400
<BR>Received: from po.missouri.edu (po.missouri.edu [128.206.12.137]) by
<BR>rly-xd04.mx.aol.com (v80.17) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXD49-0820190849; Mon,
<BR>20 Aug 2001 19:08:49 -0400
<BR>Received: from host (localhost [127.0.0.1])
<BR> by po.missouri.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA05678;
<BR> Mon, 20 Aug 2001 18:08:45 -0500
<BR>Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [195.147.246.100])
<BR> by po.missouri.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA05462
<BR> for <[log in to unmask]>; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 18:08:25 -0500
<BR>Received: from p09s05a02.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.149.10]
<BR>helo=atropos)
<BR> by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 3.16 #1)
<BR> id 15Yy9f-0001EW-00
<BR> for [log in to unmask]; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 00:08:23 +0100
<BR>Message-Id: <005901c129cc$9cfa4880$91e493c3@atropos>
<BR>Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 23:24:01 +0100
<BR>Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
<BR>Sender: [log in to unmask]
<BR>Precedence: bulk
<BR>From: "Jon Rouse" <[log in to unmask]>
<BR>To: <[log in to unmask]>
<BR>Subject: Re: Definition of art
<BR>References: <[log in to unmask]>
<BR>MIME-Version: 1.0
<BR>Content-Type: text/plain;
<BR> charset="iso-8859-1"
<BR>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<BR>X-Priority: 3
<BR>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
<BR>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
<BR>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
<BR>X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial Narrow" LANG="0"><B>
<BR></B></FONT></HTML>
--part1_88.b25a256.28b2fc8e_boundary--
|
