Thinking back to class the other day, I apparently kept repeating Lessing's argument over and over in response to Dutton's. I realize this was unintentional, but I feel it is worth exploring.
Why would I, in responding to one argument, more or less cite the other? The answer is simple, really: the former argument failed, in my view, to adequately address the points of the other.
Dutton's argument, from what I got from it, amounted to little more than "the artist is important because it always has been, and that's how it should be." He explains WHY, but he never provides an adequate defense for why it SHOULD be the case, for why it SHOULD matter for our aesthetic appreciation. This is where I think his argument fails, and why Lessing's ultimately makes much more sense.
To end with a question: SHOULD the artist of a work affect our aesthetic judgment of a piece? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I am about to respond to your question.
Post a Comment