Beauty, one hears increasingly, is in--------------------------“ the eye of the beholder.” Esthetic standards are subjective; there is no reliable critical gauge, and formal issues have drifted in the vapor o what is derided as---------------------------------------------“tas te.” (Among artists, it is now customary to use the word-----“es thetic.”) As a result, discussions of art and esthetics are seen as innocous,--------------------------------------------------------“academic” digressions, in part because things that are beautiful, while pleasurable to witness, are most likely of little significance in the prosaic, pragmatic utility of the-----------------------“real wor ld.”
Even among ar tis ts, es thetics is discredited because many (per haps mos t) no longer assume that an ar tis t’s responsibility is to make beautiful objec ts. As the Czech-born American painter Barnett Newman once said-------------------------------------------------------“Es thetics is for me as or nitholog y mus t be for the birds” (quoted in Crofton 1989, 46).
Beauty, one hears increasingly, is in “the eye of the beholder .” Esthetic standards are subjective; there is no reliable critical gauge, and formal issues have drifted in the vapor of what is derided as “taste.” (Among artists, it is now customary to use the word “esthetic.”) As a result, discussions of art and esthetics are seen as innocuous, “academic” digressions, in part because things that are beautiful, while pleasurable to witness, are most likely of little significance in the prosaic, pragmatic utility of the “real world.” Even among artists, esthetics is discredited because many (perhaps most) no longer assume that an artist’s responsibility is to make beautiful objects. As the Czechborn American painter Barnett Newman once said “Esthetics is for me as ornithology must be for the birds”
(quoted in Crofton 1989, 46).
Beauty, one hears increasingly, is in “ the eye of the beholder . ” Esthetic standards are subjective; there is no reliable critical gauge, and formal issues have drifted in the vapor of what is derided as “ taste .” (Among artists, it is now customary to use the word “esthetic .”) As a result, discussions of art and esthetics are seen as innocuous, “academic ” digressions, in part because things that are beautiful, while pleasurable to witness, are most likely of little significance in the prosaic, pragmatic utility of the “real world .” Even among artists, esthetics is discredited because many (perhaps most) no longer assume that an artist’s responsibility is to make beautiful objects. As the Czech-born American painter Barnett Newman once said “ E sthetics is for me as ornithology must be for the birds ”
(quoted in Crofton 1989, 46).
Beauty, one hears increasingly, is in “the eye of the beholder.” Esthetic standards are subjective; there is no reliable critical gauge, and formal issues have drifted in the vapor of what is derided as “taste.” (Among artists, it is now customary to use the word “esthetic.”) As a result, discussions of art and esthetics are seen as innocuous, “academic” digressions, in part because things that are
beautiful, while pleasurable to witness, are most likely of little significance in the prosaic, pragmatic utility of the “real world.”
Even among artists, esthetics is discredited because many (perhaps most) no longer assume that an artist’s responsibility is to make beautiful objects. As the Czech-born American painter Barnett Newman once said “Esthetics is for me as ornithology must be for the birds” (quoted in Crofton 1989, 46).
Beaut increa y, one hear singly, s is in Esthe subjectic stand reliab tive; ther ards are formale critical e is no in thel issues hagauge, and deride vapor o ve drifted f wha d as t is
“the
eye o f
the
beho
(Amo ng ar ti custo mar y sts, it is no w word to u se th e
lder. ”
“tast
e”
As a re ar t an sult, discus sio d as inn esthetics a ns of ocuou re see s, n
“esth
etic.”
digres sio becau ns, in se th par t ings beaut that iful, w are hi to wi tness, le pleasura ble ar of litt le sign e most lik ely ifi prosa ic, pra cance in t h gmati the c utilit e y of
“acad
)
emic
“real
world ”
”
Even among artists, esthetics is discredited because many (perhaps most) no longer assume that an artist’s responsibility is to make beautiful objects.
Beauty, one hears increasingly, is in “ t he eye of t he be hol de r.” Esthetic standards are subjective; there is no reliable critical gauge, and formal issues have drifted in the vapor of what is derided as “ t a s te .” (Among artists, it is now customary to use the word “e s t het ic .”) As a result, discussions of art and esthetics are seen as innocuous, “a c a de mic ” digressions, in part because things that are beautiful, while pleasurable to witness, are most likely of little significance in the prosaic, pragmatic utility of the “re a l wor l d .” Even among artists, esthetics is discredited because many (perhaps most) no longer assume that an artist’s responsibility is to make beautiful objects.
As the Czech-born American painter Barnett Newman once said “ E s t het ic s i s for me a s or nit holog y mu s t be for t he bird s ” (quoted in Crofton 1989, 46).
Beauty, one hears increasingly, is in
“the eye of the beholder.” Esthetic standards are subjective; there is no reliable critical gauge, and formal issues have drifted in the vapor of what is derided as “taste.” (Among artists, it is now customary to use the word “esthetic.”) As a result, discussions of art and esthetics are seen as innocuous, “academic” digressions, in part because things that are beautiful, while pleasurable to witness, are most likely of little significance in the prosaic, pragmatic utility of the .” “real world Even among artists, esthetics is discredited because many (perhaps most) no longer assume that an artist’s responsibility is to make beautiful objects. As the Czech-born American painter Barnett Newman once said ornis a e m r s is fo c i t e h ds” t r s i E b “ e h t r be fo t s u (quoted in Crofton 1989,46). m y g tholo
Beauty, one hears increasingly, is in “THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER.” (Among artists, it is now customary to use the word “ESTHETIC.”) Esthetic standards are subjective; there is no reliable critical gauge, and formal issues have drifted in the v a p o r o f w h a t i s d e r i d e d a s “ TASTE.” As a result, discussions of art and esthetics are seen as innocuous, “ACADEMIC” digressions, in part because things that are beautiful, while pleasurable to witness, are most likely of little significance in the prosaic, pragmatic utility of the “REAL WORLD.” Even among artists, esthetics is discredited because many (perhaps most) no longer assume that an arti s t ’s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s t o m a k e beautiful objects. As the Czech-born American painter Barnett Newman once said “ESTHETICS IS FOR ME AS ORNITHOLOGY MUST BE FOR THE BIRDS” (quoted in Crofton 1989, 46).
Beauty, one hears increasingly, is in “ t h e e y e o f t h e b e h o l d e r . ” Esthetic standards are subjective; there is no reliable critical gauge, and formal issues have drifted in the vapor of what is derided as “ t a s t e . ” (Among artists, it is now customary to use the word
“ e s t h e t i c .” )
As a result, discussions of art and esthetics are seen as innocuous, “ a c a d e m i c ” digressions, in part because things that are beautiful, while
pleasurable to witness, are most likely of little significance in the prosaic, pragmatic utility of the
“real
w o r l d .”
Even among artists, esthetics is discredited because many (perhaps most) no longer assume that an artist’s re sponsibility is to make beautiful objects.
because many (perhaps
most) no longer assume
.”) ga Es Be (A t u au h ge m e ty, t on ,a ic on n ga sta d e r ti fo nd he rm sts ar ar ds , it al si T iss ar nc is “ e ue H no re T s h sub as w E H ing av cu j ly, e ecti B E E sto v d E is e rif H Y m in te ; th ar O E er d yt in e o is L D O th us F n e e va o re E R th po e wo r o liable .” rd fw c ha ritic ti s d al “T eride AS d as T
E.”
“E ST H ET IC
s ile ” es ou C” aut f litt D. I e nd ocu n ta M b yo RL e l n r i E e ar O he lik ta as of AD ha st f t ns seen C gs t mo lity o L W sio e r us “A thin are uti EA , isc ics a se ess atic ,d t “R u n a t ult the i gm ec w es ra b ar ,p to rt pa ble saic As n a o s, i sur pr a e on ssi ple in th re ile dig wh nce , a ful nific sig
esthetics is discredited
that an artist’s responsibility
is to make beautiful objects. d te uo (q
an m ew tN et
rn R Ba O er int SF Y pa SI G n C I ica LO ” er T O S E Am H D rn TH IT IR bo ES N E B h“ R H ec Cz S O R T ). e A th aid O , 46 E F As e s 89 c M BE 19 on T fton US ro M in C
Even among artists,
Beauty, one hears increasingly, is in
“the eye of the beholder.” (Among artists, it is now customary to use the word
Esthetic standards are subjective; there is no reliable critical gauge, formal issues have drifted in the vapor of what is derided as
“taste.”
“esthetic.”) As a result, discussions of art and esthetics are seen as innocuous,
“academic”
Even among artists, esthetics is discredited because many (perhaps most) no longer assume that an artist’s responsibility is to make beautiful objects. As the Czech-born American painter Barnett Newman once said
digressions, in part because things that are beautiful, while pleasurable to witness, are most likely of little significance in the prosaic, pragmatic utility of the
“real world.”
(quoted in Crofton 1989, 46).
“Esthetics is for me as ornithology must be for the birds”
N S
B
ID
J ER T H E W IC E E AN C M A N PAI Z E C C NT T H O ER -B N C E B AR O R S . N N S A ETT AM
A
WHILE PLEASURABLE TO WITNESS, A R E M O S T L I K E LY O F LITTLE SIGNIFIC ANCE IN THE PROSAIC, PRAGMATIC NO
A
R
S
IS
E
TO
P
E H T S, F ST D O T I ITE T) A R ED OS Y M AN T CR G I S N DIS APS AT L O H I TH T ’ Y M IS ER T E P A ( M I T UL U CS NY SU S L TIF A I E N TI AS AU M E I E V TH SE I B BE ER S ES CAU NG T N E LO BE O MAK
R
O
B E A U T I F U L ,
E
HE AR A S ES IN S TH CR U EA TH U E T I SIN T C GA ERE B GL ST U Y J Y, D GE IS A I S N , , A NO E D I N C N R A D R FO ELI T R D S I RM AB I L E A V ARE F LI C S R T SUE ITIC E ; S A E HAV L E
B
ON E
D
IS AT H W W NO RD OF O IS R W IT HE PO OF T VA S, AS S ST SE E NS I A , N O I TH ED ART O U S EE SS S T IN RID G Y CU E U R R S N I A DE MO MA O , D CS I T T L (A STO U SU HE CU RE ST C E A D O AS T AN N AR N
I
DIGRESSIONS, I N PA RT B E C AU S E T H I N G S T H AT A R E
ds standar ic t e h t s E jective; are sub no there is critical reliable ormal gauge, f ted ave drif issues h apor of in the v as derided what is
it artists, g n o m (A y ustomar c w o n is he word to use t
) ” . c i t e h t s “e
“taste”
Beauty, on
e
hears ingly, increas is in
r” e d l o h e b e th f o e y e e h “t art and f o s n io cuss sult, dis us, e r a s A innocuo s a n e e s are s esthetic
” c i m e d a “ac
ns, in digressio cause part be hat are things t l, while beautifu able to pleasur t are mos witness, f little likely o nce in significa saic, the pro y tic utilit pragma of the
” d l r o w “real
(quoted in Crofton . 1989, 46)
disetics is h t s e , s ist st) ong art m a n haps mo e r v e E p ( y man ’s because d e n artist a it d t e a h cr t e ober assum autiful no long e b e k a o m ility is t ib merican s A n o n p r s o re b h zec said s the C n once a jects. A m w e Barnett N painter
rnio s a e m r fo ” s s i d s r i c i b t e e h h t t s r “E e fo b t s u m y g tholo
” . r e d l o h e b e h t f o e y e e N I h S t I , “ Y L G BEAUTY, ONE HEARS INCREASIN
GE, U A G L A C I LE CRIT B A I L E R O N ESTHETIC STANDARDS ARE SUBJECTIVE; THERE IS ED AS D I R E D S I T A H AND FORMAL ISSUES HAVE DRIFTED IN THE VAPOR OF W
“taste.” D “esthetic.”) R O W E H T E S U TO S NOW CUSTOMARY
(AMONG ARTISTS, IT I
S, AS A RESULT, DISCUSSIONS OF ART AND ESTHETICS ARE SEEN AS INNOCUOU
“academic”
DIGRESSION ITNESS, W S, IN PART BECAUSE O T E L B A R U S A E THINGS THAT ARE BEAUTIFUL, WHILE PL ARE MO ST LIKELY OF LITTLE S IGNIFICANCE I N THE PROSAIC, PRAGMA TIC UTILITY OF THE
“real world.”
Even among artist s,esthetics is discredited because many (perhaps most) no longer assum e that an artist’s resp onsibility is to make beautiful objects.
Beauty, one hears increasingly, is in Esthetic standards are subjective; there is no reliable critical gauge, and formal issues have d r i f t e d in the vapor of what is derided as (Among artists, it is now customary to use the word As a result, discussions of art and esthetics are seen as innocuous, digressions, in part because things that are beautiful, while pleasurable to witness, are most likely of little significance in the prosaic, pragmatic utility of the
Even among ar tists, eesthetics is discredited b st) cause many (perhaps mo no longer assume that an ar tist’s responsibility is to make beautiful objects.