I couldn't disagree more vigorously with Anthony Dauer's
equation that a
"masterpeice" must have critical acclaim. It is unsound as
logic, and as critical theory.
For instance, Moby Dick was ignored by critics (except
basically those who hated it) sold nothing at all--and
Melville's travel works were great best-sellers, so it wasn't
that he was an unknown. In the 1950's Moby Dick was elevated
to the great American novel.
Or look at Van Gogh---never sold a painting during his life.
For a decade after his death they went for "pennies." Now
he's one of the most "popular" masterpiece makers of all
time.
Do you mean "literally" that Moby Dick or a late Van Gogh
self-portrait was not a masterpiece UNTIL the public gave it
acclaim?
And what is the value of Public acclaim in the standards by
which we judge a work of art? For over a decade Rod McKuen
sold more books of poetry than any other author in America,
living or dead. Of course, that doesn't mean that they, or
let's say the wildly popular Beverly Hillbillies are
masterpieces, right?
If not, then what does pubic acclaim have to do with judging
the quality and greatness of a work of art?
Keith
Anthony Dauer 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.
:)
-- # 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 : 26 Apr 2000 EDT