Keith Alan Deutsch wrote:
>
> 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.
Keith argues the point and then:
> And what is the value of Public acclaim in the
standards by which we judge a
> work of art?
Leaving us where? If neither critical nor public acclaim
count in identifying masterpieces, how is the determination
made? I suppose historical critical and reader consensus --
those works which have stood the test of time and the slings
and arrows of outrageous academics. Most can agree, for
example, that at least one of Hammett's novels is a
masterpiece, even if we can't decide which one. On the other
hand, it may be a while before all of the votes come in on,
say, Ross McDonald. Finally, words like "masterpiece" and
"genius" and "brilliant" are tossed around like confetti
these days, and mostly just litter the floor. I use them and
abuse them myself, but I don't really take them seriously. It
never occured to me that anybody would.
BobT
-- # 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