En réponse à Raymond Brown <ray.brown@...>:
>
> Reasonably great, I'll grant.
>
I said "generally" (or else I don't know why his paintings would be sold so
expensive! :)) ), even though I find nothing very special of him...
>
> I had thought he'd once had some skill - but I'll not argue the point.
>
Well, his first paintings are no better than his last. Only the style changed.
>
> If I ever visit Amsterdam, I'll certainly let you know :)
>
OK!
>
> 'innate ability' was, I think, the wrong expression. I should've said
> something like 'innate predisposition', I think.
>
I see...
>
> Is it? The more one looks at English usage, as I have over the past
> few
> days, the more one realizes that the two terms have been used almost
> synonymously in English.
Which is only proving my point :)) .
It's only of the "liberal arts" (i.e.
> painting,
> literature, music etc) that a distinction seems to have made.
What we can also call the "major arts" you mean? It reminds me of a discussion
Gainsbourg once had with another French singer. Gainsbourg was maintaining
(contrary to the other one who would have liked to consider that popular music
was as major as sculpture :)) ) that popular music and singing was only a minor
art compared to other ones like painting or classical music. For him, the
difference between a minor art and a major one is the need of an "initiation"
for the major ones (which I take to mean: learning the craft), which is not
needed for the minor ones. I don't know whether I agree or not... Frankly, I
didn't really try to find out :)) .
>
> I haven't got any grand theories of what is and what is not art and/or
> craft. I was merely objecting to the idea that there was, somehow, a
> 'high
> art' form of conlanging that distinguished certain worthies from the
> commanlity of mere bobbyists - the former being 'serious' and the
> latter
> trivial. That what annoyed me (and still does).
>
I completely agree with you. In fact, my very idea is even more in favour of
what you say, since it democratises art by separating it from the tyranny of
high skill! :)))
I guess it's another case of "violent agreement" :)) .
> I was re-acting also to the notion of splitting this list apart with
> 'schools' or factions. But that nonsense seems quietly to have died.
>
Fortunately so...
>
> Only if one has no imagination or daring. Picasso (inter multos
> alios)
> proves it is possible.
>
But how many Picassos are there among the crowd of skillful crafts(wo)men? They
are the case I explained: those people who can know a lot about one subject
without becoming "specialised" in it. The difference is not trivial: it's the
difference between being able to see the limits and cross them, are being not.
>
> Sort of like 'craft' :)
>
:)))
>
> 'tis much the same this side of La Manche.
>
Yep, when French and English people agree, it's usually on wrong
behaviours :))) .
Christophe.
http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr
Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.