Quote:
|
The work is in a sense a 'manifestation' of the worker, the effect the worker has on the world, the 'imprint' he makes on the physical or mental universe around him. There must be some personal aspect to the work, & some 'transcendent' aspect, if the work is true art (imo).
|
Well that's the crux of our disagreement. I'm afraid I hold fast to the view that the art is valuable in itself, without reference to its creator, though again I don't think that this makes studying the author unimportant. I recall some old threads where I argued this; I'll dig them out and link to them if I get a chance.
Anyway, I wonder whether there's any value in further discussion of the issue, with such a fundamental disagreement.
And I still wonder to what extent this is all anything more than a disagreement about definitions.
Edit: Here are those links; each of them touches on issues we've also touched on here, though they cover a lot of other ground as well:
Book of the Century
Are There Any Valid Criticisms?
Dumbing Down the Books