And of those "masterpieces" have a large group saying they
are not just one person ... they also have a large body of
"experts" in their respective areas saying they're
masterpieces. As far as public acclaim goes ... the public
know its a master piece ... it's accepted by the public as a
masterpiece. It's not nonsense. Joe blow doesn't just decide
that something's a masterpiece because they think it is. What
the work was met with initially is irrelevant ... it's the
history of the work that matters. Besides in the past "the
public" wasn't the general population ... for one, they
couldn't read and for two, they rarely had access to the
works. Only in our time has there been such a wide public
access to the arts.
volente Deo,
Anthony Dauer Alexandria, Virginia
"I know. We are ... the lucky ones." Bif Naked, 1999
> From: pabergin
> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 8:51 PM
>
> 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?
-- # 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