From: "Lynne" <lmpett-AT-essex.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Aesthetic Labour Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 09:31:15 -0000 Tobin: I'm in complete agreement with you re The Full Monty! > On the whole I concur with Rakesh's assessment that Marx's concept of labor > has little role in the value of art (although I don't think the notion of > "genius" is very useful). *Titanic* may be the world's most expensive > movie, but that doesn't in itself make it the world's best movie, whatever > awards it receives (I'm speaking only in principle: I haven't yet seen the > movie and so have no judgment about it, though I was rooting for *Full > Monty* anyway). > > It's certainly true that artists can obtain one or another sort of > "qualification," but what this is and how it is obtained varies drastically, > and its relevance to their actual artistic product is highly debatable. For > instance, if my memory serves, Marlon Brando studied under the Actors' > Studio, Meryl Streep learned acting at Yale University, and Bob Hoskins had > no formal training at all. They are all very different actors, but (1) does > their different experience actually make one better than the rest, (2) how > many dreadful actors have exactly the same backgrounds, and (3) does anyone > in the audience care or even know what their training was? Or to take a > different approach: Olivier was a fine actor in some things, but his film of > *Hamlet* should be taken out and shot (sorry about the pun). > > Also, the amount of labor spent on any particular work seldom has much > bearing on its quality. Time and again, one hears about artists who slave > over some work that never meets with critical or even the artist's own > approval, but then they pop out with something first rate that took hardly > any effort at all. I've experienced this myself: one of my best articles > (in my view) poured out of me faster than anything else I've ever written. > > Finally, you write that "the quality of product does play a very important > part in its value formation." Does it? When? Did it for Van Gogh, during > his lifetime? Whose criteria of quality are to be invoked? For what > purposes? Here we really do return to issues of habitus, field, and market. > > I do think one can speak of quality in art. Admittedly, off-hand I'm not > sure how to go about defining it (oh dear, it's that certain "je ne sais > quoi"!), but the concept of labor isn't adequate partly because of the > issues of habitus and field. Anyway, as I see it, between the person who > mindlessly gobbles a brilliantly prepared salmon and the one who savors an > apple and a chunk of bread, I'd say the latter had the better meal. > > --- > Tobin Nellhaus > nellhaus-AT-gwi.net *or* tobin.nellhaus-AT-helsinki.fi > "Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce > > > > ********************************************************************** > Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu > Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu > Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ********************************************************************** Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005