old versus new art

[JCamilo]

I have no idea what it means "to avail an artwork", jcamilo. Nor do I know what you mean when you say stluke is "guided by aesthetic merit." Aesthetic merit is not an intrinsic quality of a painting or any work of art. It involves, by the nature of the words "aesthetic" or "beauty" a RESPONSE on the part of someone.

Really? That must be the motive why I meantion Stlukes or myself always when I mention the aesthetic approach to art. Right? You cannot even claim you couldn't understand this, as you mention in your answer above that i stabilish a relation between Someone (the fictional Stluke and the fictional artwork). I mean you hardly could miss that in the Picasso story there is such character (Stlukes) and in the Britney Spears there was me.

My dictionary defines "beauty" as "that quality of objects, sounds, ideas, attitudes,etc. that pleases and gratifies as by their harmony, pattern, excellence or truth."

Criticizing art without reference to the "pattern, harmony or truth" of its performance is overly personal. However, if the harmony, pattern, etc. doesn't "please or gratify" someone, it is not beautiful, and therefore has no aesthetic merit. The circle is endless.

I do not care about your dictionary, but there must be an entry for pattern which will tell you that a pattern of a artwork is often an intrinsic trait of an artwork, objective and not subjective. Unless you believe that different readers will change the number of verses and chapters of the Divine Comedy and made the terza rima turn into free verse. Seriously, you must at least understand your own dictionary.

As far as Tolstoy is concerned, he thinks "interestingness" may be meritorious -- but it's not artistic. He just wants to define "artistry" as something separate from "interestingness".

You are calling merit when he calls it false, lacking excellence, not good? He obviously is talking and passing an analyse about art, if he pics traits that he wants to show as false, he not bringing any merit at all to those traits. It would be like someone passing a judgment if either eating a book is nutritive or not then saying "it was well written, but lacked proteines".

I (on the other hand) think the artistic merit of Karsh's photos is inseparable (in part, at least) from our knowledge of Churchill or Einstein. I don't understand why you think I agree with Tolstoy (when I don't) or why you think you disagree with him (when, in this instance, you don't).

Because you claimed to have only interest on Dante's characters that were know to him, which is the interest Tolstoy mentions and that you have no interest for those you do not know. It does not matter if Karsh Pictures are or not related to their famous models (which does not disprove that having no knowledge whatsoever about their fame would cause someone to not be moved by such pictures), what matter is what you claimed and what I answered about. (And I obviously disagree with Tolstoy, his whole point is how Interest is used as a fanservise and not artistic, the use of Virgil and Beatrice clearly show the integrity of Dante work. Of course, Tolstoy is not exactly a Dante super fan, which, curiously, also reflects your position here).

Nor do I understand why you quote Tolstoy's bit about what it takes to be a novelist or a poet. In that section, Tolstoy is decrying (not, I'll grant, "descrying") the modern idea of what it takes to be a novelist or poet. He is mocking these modern ideals of how to produce art. He would prefer Little Red Riding Hood. Why are you quoting that section?

You claimed he was not biased (the should in the line about the quote, should be shoudnt). You have a huge set of rules that excluded several authors or artworks based on theme or pure formalism. That is not an unbiased opinion, that is Count Tolstoy from the top of power, an elite author also an elite member of society, preaching. He is not aiming Red Hiding Hood at all, the pure art he proposes is not simple, but a moralism. What he demands from the writers or artist is geniality. Even his "false art" is a clear attack on burgousie art and art consumism, he does not accept professional writers at all. How is this unbiased or simple?

He would love you for trying to turn him in a saint, an ascetic, but he was not.

As usual, jcamilo, I have a hard time discussing things with you because I can't understand your position. As far as why I seem hostile toward you, it is because you seem to misunderstand and misrepresent my position -- constantly -- which I find annoying.

cool man, I am fine with that.

[Ecurb]

At least I'm in good company. Jcamilo doesn't understand me, and he doesn't understand Tolstoy.

[Ecurb]

I was thinking along these lines with regard to your post on Karsh's Einstein and Hemingway. A good many of the characters that populate Dante's Comedia were well-known at the time... enough so that Dante could often allude to them without naming them outright. But the same was true of many of the sitters painted by the old masters. The historical figures of Lisa Gherardini and Baldasar Castiglione are certainly far less well-known today than the paintings of them by Leonardo and Raphael:

That's interesting, stluke. I love both paintings, but what we don't know is if they might have resonated for the Florentines who knew about the subjects even more than they do for us.

By the way, I always read and like your posts, despite Jcamilos suggestions to the contrary.