• gregorum@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    I’m not judging anything. What I’m saying is that works must be judged for their redeeming value in toto against the actions the deeds of the artist. Ie, one must be judged in balance against the other, not simply one or the other in a vacuum.

    I’m trying to express my standard for judgement, not making a judgement myself.

    • Hmm its an interesting take. I tend to take the approach of evaluating the frameworks individually and and comparing to other artworks based on each framework itself. Obviously the artist themselves are one framework for which you must evaluate but I think trying to compare that to other frames as apposed to other artist themselves is an exercise of the subjective.

      • gregorum@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        The artist isn’t a framework. An artist creates a framework, from which they must eventually be separated (in your wording).

        So, once an artist is prolific enough to establish (as you put it) a “framework”, then one can separate the judgement of the “framework” form the individual artist themselves.

        Does that make sense?

        Edit: if not, maybe I can clarify further

        • Any perspective is a framework I would consider the artist to be a perspective (framework) through which you can view said artwork. You are a framework I’m a framework an artist is a framework it inherently creates subjectivity.

          I’m well aware its usually not considered a framework in its own right and often lumped in with contextual or maybe historical but when making a division between the frameworks I find it a useful division to make.