Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [mythsoc] Digest Number 1049

Expand Messages
  • Marie Williams
    Hello everyone ~ another lurker sticking her head out in the open for a few words . . . My name s Marie, nice to meet you all . . . mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 24, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello everyone ~ another lurker sticking her head out in the open for a few words . . . My name's Marie, nice to 'meet' you all . . .
      mythsoc@yahoogroups.com wrote:
      Message: 7
      Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 18:25:03 EST
      From: stephen@...
      Subject: Art

      > That's because 20th C. intellectuals told us there are no objective
      > standards for art.

      The art establishment seems to be abandoning the idea of objective standards 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 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.

      - Stephen

      I understand that critics need standards to 'judge' by - and some people want standards for art that they can use in order to appreciate the art. But all art is subjective, correct? "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", and all that. How can there be standards created for something that is so unpredictable and everchanging as art and the human imagination? This debate on standars can be traced back to the classic debate of "What is Art?"

      For example, on this very list, Pollock to one person is 'That paint-splash guy', and to the other, he is one of the greatest American artists. Its all subjective.

      Message: 8
      Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 18:43:50 EST
      From: SusanPal@...
      Subject: Re: Aragorn and kingship, and kingship elsewhere

      In a message dated 11/23/2002 2:38:18 PM Pacific Standard Time,
      Stolzi@... writes:

      > For this reason, he adds, readers like this are generally uninterested in
      > fantasy. The stories shd have the kind of realistic contemporary
      > window-dressing which allows them to think "All this could happen to ME > someday..."

      Question: are "unliterary" daydreams with fantastic elements somehow more
      worthy than "unliterary" daydreams about winning the lottery, because at
      least they reveal a willingness to venture outside the boundaries of the
      known world? (Although most of the wish-fulfillment fantasy I've seen is so
      formulaic that imagination can't be properly said to have entered into it.)

      This question sounds very familiar - similiar questions are brought up in debates about genres. Is this more important than this, because it is in the F&SF shelf rather than the Magical Realism shelf? Ursula K. LeGuin, for example, writes across all genres - she confuses marketers and readers alike because she is hard to classify - even whether some of her work is 'literary' or 'unliterary'. Can we really classify work as such? I mean, it seems just to boil down to snobbish cliques, don't you think?

      Take care ~ Marie

      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.