artlangs as engelangs
|From:||And Rosta <and.rosta@...>|
|Date:||Friday, July 20, 2007, 0:56|
Mark J. Reed, On 19/07/2007 23:51:
> On 7/19/07, And Rosta <and.rosta@...> wrote:
>> But it would seem perverse -- contrary to the spirit of art -- to
>> assess a work of art in terms of how
>> successfully it achieves its stated goals.
> Funny, that seems like a perfectly reasonable way to assess a work of
> art to me, well within the spirit of artistic endeavors.
Works of art usually don't have stated goals. Even when their authors do state their
goals, I, like most people, would see that as extrinsic to the work of art.
It's true that a lot of conceptualist avantgardist contemporary art is now
almost mandatorily accompanied by a statement by the artist of what the work's
goals are, but that really just underlines what bullshit and aesthetically
bankrupt shite that variety of art is. I, like most people, assess works of art
according to how they delight me, how they move me, how they transport me, how
profound they are, what insights they give me, and so forth. To the limited
extent that academic criticism assesses works of art, the assessment is done by
criteria similar to these, and without reference to stated goals.