| | I'm in the process of reading this 1997 DoubleDay book by Richard Zacks. It's one of those books that picks historical things apart. I have another, similar book called The Experts Speak, where supposed experts said things -- like Hitler's nephew calling him harmless -- which turned out to be just a little comical.
Objective
I plan to post a few different entries of this book, entries which I find particularly relevant to Objectivism.
Entry 1
My first shared entry from this particular book will deal with art and it's critics. It's in the "Revenge Against Critics" section of the book. Rand showed -- in Romantic Manifesto -- how art (and, by extension, art critics) can be good and bad in one or the other of 2 ways:
(1) level of skill
(2) metaphysical value judgments
In Zacks' book, he writes about how British art critic John Ruskin (1819-1900) was sued for libel by American artist James McNeill Whistler. I'd be interested to see what RoR folks think about not just the lawsuit over art (i.e., the legality of being able to call someone else's art: trash), but also of the idea of the morality of art (the moral justification of this criticism).
The piece in question was Whistler's Falling Rocket, viewable by pointing your browser to the following web address ...
http://www.jssgallery.org/Other_Artists/Whistler/Nocturne_in_Black_and_Gold_The_Falling_Rocket.htm
Regarding this piece, Ruskin wrote ...
===========
... Lindsay ought not to have admitted works into the gallery in which the ill-educated conceit of the artist so nearly approached the aspect of willful imposture. I have seen and heard much of cockney impudence before now; but never expected to hear a coxcomb ask two hundred guineas [about 5 times the yearly salary of a factory worker] for flinging a pot of paint in the public's face.
===========
Whistler sued him for saying that and won his libel suit, but was only awarded one farthing (a fourth of one cent) in damages. Both men, artist and critic, were ruined thereafter -- Whistler because of losing his house and furniture for lawyer's fees; Ruskin because of losing his pride at Oxford University after losing the case.
During the trial, the attorney-general representing Ruskin asked Whistler: "You mean, Mr. Whistler, that the initiated in technical matters might have no difficulty in understanding your work. But do you think now that could make ME see the beauty of the picture?"
Whistler, answering "No!", went on to say: "Do you know I fear it would be as hopeless as for a musician to pour his notes into the ear of a deafman." This made the courtroom burst into laughter.
The attorney-general retorted by asking Whistler how long the painting took. Whistler said it took 2 days to paint. When the attorney-general complained that the artist was asking for 5 yearly salaries (of a factory worker) for just 2 days of work, then Whistler responded that he was asking to be paid for the knowledge of a lifetime.
My question to RoR members is:
Is this a case of "artistic license?"
My personal impression of the painting -- and, by extension, of the decision of the court to side with Whistler in letter (if not in spirit) -- is that it sucks.
;-)
Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/08, 5:13pm)
|
|
Both Whistler and Turner were discussed at length as episodes in Simon Schama's 
