Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mfs
From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: Since when does a great artist have to be recognized?
Message-ID: <401@mhuxr.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 22-Aug-85 09:19:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: mhuxr.401
Posted: Thu Aug 22 09:19:12 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 15:53:54 EDT
References: <1446@pyuxd.UUCP> <387@mhuxr.UUCP> <1455@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 37

> I have a mind of my own, don't I?  If I have experienced the art of an
> unrecognized (or recognized) artist I can decide for myself whether they
> are great without listening to stupid critics or silly historians.
> 
> If, on the other hand, I've never experienced any of the art of a great
> unrecognized artist, then I wouldn't know that they are great.  But that
> doesn't mean they aren't!

This is becoming a philosophical debate. Yes, a great artist that no one has
never heard of is still a great artist. But since judging art is necessarily
subjective, calling someone great implies familiarity with the work (if one
is honest.) So a great artist who is totally unknown is a contradiction
(emphasize totally; I am not talking about someone with a small, dedicated
circle of admirers, since such an artist is recognized within that circle,
which in turns forms the basis for expanding popularity of said artist.)
So although your statement is true in principle, without some absolute
mechanism for evaluating art, it is untestable in practicce.

Now someone YOU have never heard of, but whose work is reasonably documented,
is something else.Then you are talking about *your* recognizing artistic work,
which does not of change its intrinsic worth (however you measure that,) only
its relative worth with your system of art appreciation (which is different for
everybody)

Your Van Gogh example is a good case in point. You *already know* his work,
so saying that he would have been just as great is meaningless. If no one had
heard of him, he would not have the influence on other painters that he has.
I have already told you that in my opinion, the most "objective" measure of
artistic worth we have is the degree of influence on others (insufficient
though that measurement may be, the only other is the purely subjective
"I think so, therefore it is," that Rosen and others are so intent on stamping
out :-)

So I believe we agree in general, but disagree on the specifics. That's
fine with me

Marcel Simon