> That's because 20th C. intellectuals told us there are no objectiveThe art establishment seems to be abandoning the idea of objective standards
> standards for art.
because of repeated waves of profoundly wrong 'objective standards'. I think
the current trend may have started with the Impressionists being so strongly
denounced by the critics and scholars of their time. "Van Gogh? Monet? I'm
mean really! What kind of debased junk is that?" The same thing happened
with the Bauhaus and the Surrealists. So now many critics are a little more
careful about claiming personal knowledge of absolute standards.
By the way, if "that guy who paints with splashes" is Jackson Pollock, he's
probably the greatest American artist to date.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 3:25 PM
Subject: [mythsoc] Art
> That's because 20th C. intellectuals told us there are no objective
> standards for art.
I believe that the only standards by which art should be judged is by that of vision, and talent. Classical Greek art being possessed of the ideal of Arête (physical and spiritual perfection), and being exemplified by mosaics and sculptures. Many of the Chinese Taoists spent half their lives perfecting their brushwork, and is it not only natural that their subject by the natural world that provided so many of their life lessons.
Tolkien can also be judged, and judged well, by these standards. Most, if not all, of his life the world of Middle-earth was evolving. Primarily linguistically yes, but also geographically. His vision was the product of hours of "daydreaming." Considering it took Tolkien several years to write the LotR, to say nothing of the decades spent on the Silmarillion.
Also considering the detail and meticulousness of the movie in regards to language and culture, geography, and adaptation to a largely lay audience (mostly done it seems to cover the expense of production) Peter Jackson's film must also be judged quite good.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]