Posted by Peter W. Schramm
Someone finally wrote a sensible piece on Arthur Miller. He has been much overpraised, the author of the American "Lear," and other such foolery. Terry Teachout calls him lead-eared, without a poetic bone in his body. There is more.
Im not fond of propositions that art and/or artists can be judged objectively. I can say, "Shakespeare was a terrible writer, and I find his works devoid of feeling and any sort of poetic quality." But does this change how many people have been touched by his literature? I might venture to say all art is like this.
And, piss-Christ is as beautiful as Pieta or the Sistine Chapel? I dont think so. Relativism can only go so far even in art.
I think the relativism you speak of starts where "art" stops. I stop short of calling the "piss-Christ" art.
Im not trying to pick a fight here, but you did say in comment number one, "Im not fond of propositions that art/artists can be judged objectively." On what basis are you making claims about what is or isnt art with this presupposition. Then, on what basis can you then judge what is good or is not good art? Is it all subjective as that post seems to indicate? I agree that the impact on the human soul and human person usually is a good reflection of the quality of the art - but that probably reflects an objective beauty and truth that appeals to our natures and aesthetic sense of beauty. As you say, piss-Christ debases both the sacred and the profane and has little to do with art.
Ashbrook Center at Ashland University | 401 College Avenue | Ashland, Ohio 44805 | (419) 289-5411 | (877) 289-5411 (Toll Free)