GENERAL: Artistic Genius, A Myth?

From: IN%"[email protected]" "Art Criticism Discussion Forum" 15-JAN-1994
13:55:12.17
To: IN%"HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx" "Howard Lawrence"
CC:
Subj: against the notion of individual artistic genius ...

Return-path: <[email protected]>
Return-path: ARTCRIT <@PSUVM.PSU.EDU:[email protected]>
Received: from Jnet-DAEMON by ARCH.PSU.EDU (PMDF #12866) id
<01H7PPMJXVWW8WVYKR@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sat, 15 Jan 1994 13:55 EDT
Received: From PSUVM(MAILER) by PSUARCH with Jnet id 5849 for HRL@PSUARCH; Sat,
15 Jan 1994 13:55 EST
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU
(LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 4327; Sat, 15 Jan 1994 13:53:24 -0500
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 1994 13:50:07 -0500
From: GILBERT VANBUREN WILKES IV <[email protected]>
Subject: against the notion of individual artistic genius ...
Sender: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
To: Howard Lawrence <HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
Message-id: <01H7PPMJXVWW8WVYKR@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-To: [email protected]

Shades and Silhouettes:

Inasmuch as it has somehow fallen upon my narrow, sloping
shoulders to stand entirely alone (and for the most part,
entirely un-armed) against the (utterly obnoxious) myth of
individualism (now being presented with such vigor on this list),
or rather, the notion of the individual as an ideological datum,
i am entirely remiss for not offering something of a (stinging)
critique of the (entirely false) notion of individual artistic
genius. For this myth of individual artistic genius is but a
dangerous and stultifying analogue of the more general ideologeme
of the individual. It is taken for granted that you will be kind
enough to forgive me, and it is hoped, kind enough to further
indulge me - for as it will be revealed below, i am entirely
correct.
Your entirely un-solicited expressions of gratitude and
spontaneous ejaculations of praise for my debate-enriching
critical enterprise against the ideology of the individualism and
against all that tends toward alienation in general will be
warmly accepted and greatly appreciated. i thank you in advance.
You are all too kind, too generous, and too easily moved by the
labors of one such as i on your behalf.

BUT_A_FEW_SPARSE_NOTES_TOWARD_A_CRITIQUE_OF_THE_MYTHOLOGY_OF_
_INDIVIDUAL_ARTISTIC_GENIUS_

That the myth of artistic genius is essentially elitist
cannot be denied even by those who argue the case for such a myth
- if some are "possessed" of some degree of aesthetic authority
more than others by whatever means (divine inspiration, innate
talents, genetic inheritance, or perhaps the prerogatives of
class membership - such things as access to health-care, good-
nutrition, good education and access to higher education, superior
training and so forth) and others are not, this is an elitist
state of affairs, an unequal distribution of roles and resources
premised not upon rational grounds, but upon entirely accidental
grounds. That both artists and critics are fond of referring to
artistic genius in metaphysical, even mystical terms (terms like
"inspiration" or "possession") only obfiscates or mystifies the
issue - for these obscurantist terms smoke-screen the entirely
material and historical conditions that made that artistic
"genius" (for want of a better term) possible (local conditions
outlined partially above - such things as education, access,
class membership and so forth), even such global conditions as
the prevailing division of labor, distribution of wealth,
production and resources and technical development of the given
society and polity. As Marx argued:

"Raphael as much as any other artist was
determined by the technical advances in art made
before him, by the organisation of society and the
division of labour in his locality, and, finally,
by the division of labour in all the countries
with which hs locality had intercourse." (Marx 108)

It follows then that a more equitable distribution of
resources and organization of labor would have resulted in many
w3 more "geniuses" than merely that of Raphael! How many Raphaels
were dying in mercenary armies for renegade princes or begging on
the streets of Rome when Raphael himself was in the service of
the Holy Father? It follows that the stultifying division of
labor foisted upon us by market capital, of which the cheifest
ideological buttress is the myth of the individual, the
individual with his (or her, i suppose; though the myth of the
individual is almost always gendered male!) individual talents
competing in the market place to overcome his or competitors and
grab whatever dollars he or she can (at the expense of the
artistic object - which must be hammered and bent and shaped to
fit the prevailing winds of fashion and market demand).
The myth of individual artistic genius functions as something
of an alibi for the empire of the market place - where all, even
our time, has become commodity. It valorizes inequality by
arguing that some are greater than others, some better fit to
survive, some means or modes of expression (valorized by the
market place) are superior to others, and richly the rewards the
so-called "geniuses" (to the delight of the collectors and
investors) while leaving the rest of the arts community to starve
and scrape and beg for funding and resources (divided against
itself, and thereby easy to control). It is the art community's
answer to the Hollywood star-factory system of commodified-
personality. It must be resisted. It must be done away with if we
are to return artistic production to the greater body of people.

_Works_cited_or_otherwise_consulted_

Marx, Karl & Engles, Frederick. _The_German_Ideology;_Part_One_
Arthur, C.J. Editor. New York: International Publishers.
1970.

yours & etcetera
g.v.w. iv
Partial thread listing: