On 08-Sep-08 4:56, Jim Charter wrote:
> Shay wrote:
>> Jim Charter wrote:
>>
>>> That worth should be manifest in the result alone, should it not?
>>
>>
>> It should not have to be. If that were the case, why have collage? or 
>> sand-painting? or whittling? or glass blowing? or print-making? or the 
>> butterfly stroke?
>>
>> What is required to fully appreciate these things is a knowledge of 
>> their difficulty. Any idiot can tell that drawing a picture with sand 
>> is more difficult than taking a picture with a camera, but many 
>> wouldn't appreciate the difficulty of, for instance, lacquer painting.
>>
>> And all of this is not to say that the worth *isn't* necessarily 
>> "manifest in the work alone." It may very well be, but, Christ, Jim, 
>> allow that the worth may require, at the very least, a second look to 
>> reveal itself. :) If showing the 'dirty linen' gets a second or third 
>> look, then I see no shame in at least giving the patron a peek.
>>
> 
> Well stated, and obviously I've gotten myself trapped within logical 
> containers: "all" vs "some", "necessary" vs "sufficient", "should" vs 
> "could".  There is a consensus building in the thread here, one that is 
> certainly true, that meaning lies with the individuality viewer, beauty 
> with the taste of the beholder, and merit in the judgment of the patron.
> 
> Yet the artwork remains the necessary focus for all this sentience.
> 
> If the story is Confucian, as Thomas suggests, then I agree the 
> pragmatic assertion, the value of the painting can be demonstrated once 
> the labor behind it is made apparent, would be favored over the abstract 
> question, what are the qualities of the work itself that embody value?
> 
> The story also turns on the "single stroke" request.
> The request which occasioned the best the painter could offer in 
> creative toil, skill, and ingenuity, focused instead on simple execution 
> and is revealed to have been rooted in the vulgar concerns of money. 
> This is certainly a pivot of some interest.
> 
> Shay it seems to me that there is a mild twist to how this conversation 
> has played out.  Labor, and especially craftsmanship, could be qualities 
> cited to show the artwork itself does have universal, or at least 
> persistent value outside of context.  Yet for you, correctly, these 
> become evidence that the particular knowledge of the viewer enhances an 
> artwork.  Yet craftsmanship, in particular is one that I hang up on.  I 
> can't get it to reside wholly with the viewer.
> 
> And I still go back to my music example. (Though you have allowed my 
> point here.)  If I think Germany's National Anthem is beautiful, I do it 
> with little concern for anything else.
> 
Couple of remarks:
- in this story the painter is just like a drug company that tells you 
that you are not paying for the manufacturing of *this* pill, but for 
everything they did to be able to make it in the first place.
- Craftsmanship is a double headed sword. It can either show itself when 
an artist spends a lot of time getting it exactly right. It may also 
show by the artist getting it right extremely fast. Sometimes we 
appreciate the one, sometimes the other.
- Any discussion on what is art is made impossible by a group of Artists 
and Art Connoisseurs that have elevated originality to the main 
criterion to judge by. So much so that they think somethings are 
interesting because nobody did it before, while the rest of the world 
knows that nobody did it because it is ugly and uninteresting. We need 
another term to denote this kind of institutionalized 'art'. Shay's work 
is more traditional. It speaks of craftsmanship even if you don't know 
how it was made. Knowing it may or may not increase the artistic value. 
It is the kind of art that sells well, but won't make it into a museum 
of modern art (though it might, retrospectively, 3 centuries from now)

Post a reply to this message