Originally Posted by karard
The quality of a work is determined by the importance of the idea relative to today's social attitudes and how well the artist has brought his idea to the viewer.
I'd agree with most of what you said, but...if our relavant social times and mores slips arguably into modes of mediocrity ...I guess I'd argue how important this
determinant would be. In which case, I'd rather produce a work that would have found approval from past artists I admired and would prefer as mentors, past ideas of excellence and mores, and so forth.
Whenever an "ought" is suggested...which you have here, I have to ask myself why ought the ought ought to be
? What ultimately makes a right right and a wrong wrong?
We have at best an example to better understand your mores...but they wouldn't succeed to define an essential ought
for everyone's sense of that which should be ideal composition.
Not to argue...as I said I agree with most of what you have said, but if we're not careful...there is a tone of insistence with the wording as you have it that has not the authority to shackle or bind. Gives us an interesting premise to perhaps study your work and the works of those you might admire.
It may well be we don't believe the vast enculturation of the modern possesses the taste we wish to have our work judged by. Its not always a bad thing to be outdated or passe´...in fact, I'm motivated to imagine I'd have an occasional nod from Edgar Payne or Emile Gruppe...