User talk:Cellorando

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello Cellorando, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

[edit] Sources for Bruno Bjelinski

Hello, good work on Bruno Bjelinski, and thanks for the contribution. However, you did not provide any references or sources in the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. From what websites, books, or other places did you learn the information that you added to Bruno Bjelinski? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? You can simply add links, or see WP:CITET if you wish to review some of the different citation methods. Thanks!  BRIAN0918  00:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sheer Genius

Those were my words, alright. I think I have a fuller discussion at artistic inspiration, but what I was doing was trying to discuss criticism rather than artists themselves (although I think they follow and lead the critics). In essence, I was trying to survey critical thought on genius, and, since 1945, the discussion of genius has quieted considerably. There is far less discussion of or attribution of "genius" and much more value given to technique and ability. I didn't want to break away from a discussion of criticism to a discussion of movements in the modern era, but, had I wanted to, I think the thesis would have been the same.

  1. Modernism had a quite Romantic insistence on genius. (Brache, Duchamps, Picasso, Dali, and Man Ray all saw themselves as separate from the rest of humanity in genius. The bicycle seat with handlebars is a bull because it was done by an artist. The urinal on the wall is art if done by an artist, because what artists do is art.) Abstract Expressionism is a genius-centered movement too. The agony of the individual emotion, the freeze-frame of a single gesture of feeling, is captured in a purely affective display.
  2. Poetry has a good analog with this. The "High Modernists" (Poud, Eliot, Yeats) were seers, geniuses, prophets. Those who followed them, the Confessionals and the Beat Poets, were just as addicted to the language of genius, although they sneered at it. Sylvia Plath's "Daddy" requires you to know her biography, just as a Pollack painting makes you know his soul at that moment. Ginsberg's "Howl" may heap manure on seriousness, but he's a genius doing it.
  3. Since these two movements, post-modernism has emphasized skill, collage, awareness of the medium and the technique itself. Pastiche and concrete music, found music, found art, all ask people to note the skill, the impersonal expression of the personal. The creator is clever, not stricken by Dionysius. The L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poets turn from communication of philosophy to communication of the means of communication and questioning it.

So the answer is, yes, I've observed it. Absolutely: I think we're in a technical age and not a genius age. In the article, though, I was trying to stick to "what the critics say" and so I chickened out and said, basically, "fewer critics talk about genius and imagination being superior to skill these days." I didn't want to say there was a movement in that direction as much as a running out of steam of the Romantic genius theory. Geogre 22:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/e/l/User_talk%7ECellorando_1dc3.html"