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 concensus 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 judgement 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 craftmanship, 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.

Post a reply to this message