Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (234656)	6/29/2007 2:35:25 PM
From: c.hinton	Respond to of 281500

The point is that many artist were much more than artisans... You have made a sweeping generalization about all artists with no supporting facts and a very loose definition. Nadine ...your writing is sloppy...though your spelling is good.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (234656)	6/29/2007 3:14:19 PM
From: c.hinton	Respond to of 281500

"At times we seem to be reading a history of the gradual recognition of the artist as practitioner of a discipline founded on a rational and theoretical foundation, one who works with the mind as well as the hand. This form of recognition was available to very famous artists from the time of Giotto onward, regardless of the artist's actual claim to humanist learning (Titian was acclaimed as a poet but had no pretensions to literary expertise). A different story is presented by artists who adopted the language and concepts of humanism for the definition of their art, usually through writing (such as Cennino Cennini and Filarete), or who sought common ground with humanists by learning Latin and studying the classics (Mantegna and Raphael went in this direction). More could have been made of the observation that artists also created their own areas of expertise, which c hallenged and extended the organization of knowledge in the period. That this point is not developed is a result of the author's pronounced emphasis on the artist's social advancement and self-fashioning; fields of knowledge that artists mined as their own did not qualify them for automatic recognition as the equal of philosophers, historians, or poets, nor is it apparent that they made any difference to their social status. For instance, a number of artists by 1500 had acquired a certain expertise as antiquarians (we might think of Jacopo Bellini, Sperandio, Mantegna, Andrea Bregno, Amico Aspertini, Francesco di Giorgio, Gian Cristoforo Romano), but their expertise was centered on things rather than on texts. In practical terms, it meant that they were consulted not to interpret but to testify to the quality or authenticity of an ancient gem or work of sculpture; did this then qualify them for "intellectual status"? What was the value placed on such an empirical way of knowing the ancient world, as distinct from that of, say, Flavio Biondo? There was something rather new about the emergence of art as a form of knowledge, one related to but not commensurable with literary measures of intellectual merit, and a sustained analysis of this tendency is lacking here. Instead of the emergence of the artist as a new category of learned person, we are told of his always inadequate emulation of a series of already available categories."......... edit continueation of above The author refers to a "shift in the intellectual purpose and nature of the artist's workshop," which "From being a center of craft practice... became the locus of activities that were recognized as intellectually valid" (p. 57). But how was this intellectual validation bestowed, and by whom? The distinction between social ambition and intellectual aspiration is often elided here, and the latter always stands as a sign for the former: for instance, [the court artist had] a position from which he could aspire to become a courtier, but he did not yet rank intellectually alongside courtiers" (p. findarticles.com