Our friendly monk wrote:
>To be a "masterpiece" at least literally requires
public acclamation ...
>doesn't mean the work isn't good, but if it's not
popular it cannot by
>definition be a "masterpiece" ... bummer as that is.
:)
By whose definition?
Consider -- Guernica. Michaelangelo's "Moses." Taliesan (sp?)
West. The Curved Arc. Cadillac Ranch. Candy. Pinktoes. Naked
Lunch. Ulysses. Finnegan's Wake. The Ginger Man. Portrait of
the Artist as a Young Dog. The Ballad of Reading Gaol. Jude
the Obscure. Moll Flanders. Madame Bovary.
One could go on. All of the above, acknowledged masterpieces
all, were met either with indifference, hostility, or an
active move to suppress.
What's this public acclaim nonsense? PB
-- # To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to majordomo@icomm.ca. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 19 Apr 2000 EDT