Recognizing greatness
If you think you're a great artist, or a great thinker, then chances are, of course, that you are not.
Nevertheless, you almost certainly have to believe you are a great artist or great thinker actually to be one. This is for two reasons.
First, if you're a great artist, then you know what a great art work looks like. But then you'd recognize that your own works have the quality in question. And similarly, if you're a great thinker, then you know what great thinking looks like, and you'd recognize that your own has that quality. To fail to recognize great art and great thinking seem like failures that are inconsistent with - or at least in very serious tension with - being a producer of such things (for then one would be producing them arbitrarily - which seems inconsistent with being great, as then you'd just be lucky).
Second, we do not typically do things we think we're going to fail at. Indeed, that might even by psychologically impossible. You're surely not really trying to do something unless you believe you'll succeed. Yet to produce great art or great thoughts you obviously have to produce something that is original and goes beyond where other great people have taken things. You don't do that by luck (and if one did, we would not consider the person who did it to be great, but rather to be very lucky). You do it by effort. By trying to do it. So, great artists and great thinkers are trying to be great. To be a great thinker you have to think, then, that you will succeed in going beyond where other great thinkers have taken things. If you didn't think you were capable of doing that, you'd not even try - and if you don't even try to be great, you're not going to be great. Thus, a great thinker will think they are a great thinker, for they will be confident that they can have great thoughts. That's step one of having any.
So, if you think you're not a great thinker then guess what - you're not. But if you think you are a great thinker then, though the odds are against it, there's a tiny possibility that you are. Likewise if you think you're a great artist.
But given that the odds that you're a great artist or great thinker are so vanishingly small, surely you are not justified in believing you're a great thinker? You'd surely be being epistemically irresponsible in believing yourself great, especially given that you're unlikely to be receiving much confirmation from others (it's very hard for the mediocre to recognize greatness - great thinking will seem very peculiar to someone who thinks in a mediocre way and the odds are very high that they will deem it a kind of stupidity. LIkewise for great art. It was no accident that someone like Van Gogh was only thought to be great by other great artists and those with extremely sophisticated tastes....everyone else thought his art was utter rubbish. And similarly, Hume was not recognized to be a great thinker by his contemporaries, but only by later great thinkers such as Reid).
So a great artist or great thinker seems inevitably to be guilty of epistemic irresponsibility, at least when it comes to their own abilities. They will believe themselves great long before anyone else does, and they will have believed themselves to be on the basis of no publicly verified evidence. They will produce art works that will be thought either to be rubbish, or at least not to be positively great, by most others, or they will produce thinking that will be thought silly or nonsense by most others. Yet despite this they will believe themselves to be great.
I do not believe the great are guilty of an epistemic vice, however. I think the great 'know' that they are great, rather than unjustifiably believe it. And I think this is the case despite the fact others will think they are not great and that the great thinker or artist will probably be aware that most people do not share their own assessment of their own abilities.
First, if you believe something to be true that everyone else believes to be false - and that everyone else is justified in believing to be false, too - are you epistemically irresponsible for believing it?
No, not necessarily. Here's an example (not mine - don't know whose it is, but it isn't mine). Imagine your plane has crashed into the ocean and you have washed up on an unknown island. You know that rescue missions will have been launched to find you and your plane. And as you have now been on the island for months, you know by now that everyone else will now believe you are dead. Furthermore, it is clear that others are perfectly justified in believing this. Indeed, it'd be epistemically irresponsible of them not to believe it. Your plane crashed into the ocean and there's been no evidence of your survival for months - it is beyond a reasonable doubt that you're dead.
But you're not. And you know you're not. It'd be quite absurd, would it not, for you to conclude that you might actually be dead on the grounds that everyone else believes - and believes justifiably - that you're dead? Yes, of course.
So, you know you're alive, even though everyone else is justified in believing you're dead (and you know this too). You're in no way being epistemically irresponsible in believing yourself to be alive.
Of course, in this case you have access to some evidence of your continued existence here that others do not possess. You are having your experiences. And so you can reliably infer your continued existence from those. But others can't, as they're not having them.
But this applies to the great artist and great thinker. Everyone else thinks the great thinker is not a great thinker. And they're probably justified in thinking this. They've considered what the great thinker thinks, and to the best of their judgement, it seems to them that the thoughts the great thinker is having are not that great at all - indeed, a lot of them don't really make much sense to them. So, in light of that, they are justified in believing the great thinker to be something else - a mediocre thinker or even a bad thinker. And the great thinker will be aware of this; aware that others think they're not a great thinker, and aware that they're probably justified in that assessment.
But the great thinker or artist has access to some evidence that others do not have access to. They are discerning, correctly, their own greatness. Others do not have access to this evidence, or at least most don't, for you'd need to be great or somewhere close to have such powers of discernment. But great people do have such powers, for it is by exercising them that they produce great art and great thoughts. And thus the great thinker and the great artist are not being epistemically irresponsible in believing themselves to be great. They are in relevant respects like the person on the island who knows he's alive, even though everyone else is justified in believing him to be dead.
I conclude, then, that great people 'know' that they are great and will typically know it a long time before anyone else does.
Nevertheless, you almost certainly have to believe you are a great artist or great thinker actually to be one. This is for two reasons.
First, if you're a great artist, then you know what a great art work looks like. But then you'd recognize that your own works have the quality in question. And similarly, if you're a great thinker, then you know what great thinking looks like, and you'd recognize that your own has that quality. To fail to recognize great art and great thinking seem like failures that are inconsistent with - or at least in very serious tension with - being a producer of such things (for then one would be producing them arbitrarily - which seems inconsistent with being great, as then you'd just be lucky).
Second, we do not typically do things we think we're going to fail at. Indeed, that might even by psychologically impossible. You're surely not really trying to do something unless you believe you'll succeed. Yet to produce great art or great thoughts you obviously have to produce something that is original and goes beyond where other great people have taken things. You don't do that by luck (and if one did, we would not consider the person who did it to be great, but rather to be very lucky). You do it by effort. By trying to do it. So, great artists and great thinkers are trying to be great. To be a great thinker you have to think, then, that you will succeed in going beyond where other great thinkers have taken things. If you didn't think you were capable of doing that, you'd not even try - and if you don't even try to be great, you're not going to be great. Thus, a great thinker will think they are a great thinker, for they will be confident that they can have great thoughts. That's step one of having any.
So, if you think you're not a great thinker then guess what - you're not. But if you think you are a great thinker then, though the odds are against it, there's a tiny possibility that you are. Likewise if you think you're a great artist.
But given that the odds that you're a great artist or great thinker are so vanishingly small, surely you are not justified in believing you're a great thinker? You'd surely be being epistemically irresponsible in believing yourself great, especially given that you're unlikely to be receiving much confirmation from others (it's very hard for the mediocre to recognize greatness - great thinking will seem very peculiar to someone who thinks in a mediocre way and the odds are very high that they will deem it a kind of stupidity. LIkewise for great art. It was no accident that someone like Van Gogh was only thought to be great by other great artists and those with extremely sophisticated tastes....everyone else thought his art was utter rubbish. And similarly, Hume was not recognized to be a great thinker by his contemporaries, but only by later great thinkers such as Reid).
So a great artist or great thinker seems inevitably to be guilty of epistemic irresponsibility, at least when it comes to their own abilities. They will believe themselves great long before anyone else does, and they will have believed themselves to be on the basis of no publicly verified evidence. They will produce art works that will be thought either to be rubbish, or at least not to be positively great, by most others, or they will produce thinking that will be thought silly or nonsense by most others. Yet despite this they will believe themselves to be great.
I do not believe the great are guilty of an epistemic vice, however. I think the great 'know' that they are great, rather than unjustifiably believe it. And I think this is the case despite the fact others will think they are not great and that the great thinker or artist will probably be aware that most people do not share their own assessment of their own abilities.
First, if you believe something to be true that everyone else believes to be false - and that everyone else is justified in believing to be false, too - are you epistemically irresponsible for believing it?
No, not necessarily. Here's an example (not mine - don't know whose it is, but it isn't mine). Imagine your plane has crashed into the ocean and you have washed up on an unknown island. You know that rescue missions will have been launched to find you and your plane. And as you have now been on the island for months, you know by now that everyone else will now believe you are dead. Furthermore, it is clear that others are perfectly justified in believing this. Indeed, it'd be epistemically irresponsible of them not to believe it. Your plane crashed into the ocean and there's been no evidence of your survival for months - it is beyond a reasonable doubt that you're dead.
But you're not. And you know you're not. It'd be quite absurd, would it not, for you to conclude that you might actually be dead on the grounds that everyone else believes - and believes justifiably - that you're dead? Yes, of course.
So, you know you're alive, even though everyone else is justified in believing you're dead (and you know this too). You're in no way being epistemically irresponsible in believing yourself to be alive.
Of course, in this case you have access to some evidence of your continued existence here that others do not possess. You are having your experiences. And so you can reliably infer your continued existence from those. But others can't, as they're not having them.
But this applies to the great artist and great thinker. Everyone else thinks the great thinker is not a great thinker. And they're probably justified in thinking this. They've considered what the great thinker thinks, and to the best of their judgement, it seems to them that the thoughts the great thinker is having are not that great at all - indeed, a lot of them don't really make much sense to them. So, in light of that, they are justified in believing the great thinker to be something else - a mediocre thinker or even a bad thinker. And the great thinker will be aware of this; aware that others think they're not a great thinker, and aware that they're probably justified in that assessment.
But the great thinker or artist has access to some evidence that others do not have access to. They are discerning, correctly, their own greatness. Others do not have access to this evidence, or at least most don't, for you'd need to be great or somewhere close to have such powers of discernment. But great people do have such powers, for it is by exercising them that they produce great art and great thoughts. And thus the great thinker and the great artist are not being epistemically irresponsible in believing themselves to be great. They are in relevant respects like the person on the island who knows he's alive, even though everyone else is justified in believing him to be dead.
I conclude, then, that great people 'know' that they are great and will typically know it a long time before anyone else does.
Comments (51)
Note too that I was not asking you what was okay, but what the concept of okayness is the concept of.
"Great" people don't know they are extraordinary. Never. When you want to do different things from the ordinary, there are a lot of chances to suffer criticism. This is what happened to Van Gogh or James Joyce. A good example of masters in literature and arts. Their works are magnificent but with the eyes of modern generations. Van Gogh was poor because nobody really bought any of his paints and James Joyce was not well understood by the literature critics.
So, to become "great" needs a lot of facts than just thinking I am good. You (we) need the approval from the rest of the people.
Secondly: I don't know if an artist makes his stuff just to show he is good or "great". For example: I took part in short story contest of this forum. When I finished my story in my computer I didn't think: "this is supreme". I was just proud of myself because I was able to conjugate words and make an original story. I was happy. Nevertheless, I was pessimistic towards the opinions from the members. I thought they would not like it or I would receive negative comments. It ended good and I received good feedback but I wasn't my intention.
We can make a test about this topic. I going to share my short story with you: Wake up, newborns! and I am opened to your comments and criticism. I am not hoping my story is "great" indeed...
Well, these kind of artists make the art to themselves, then. I see your point and I am somehow agree, but I don't understand the cause of writing a book or painting a landscape if no one ever would read or see them.
It would be a sorrow for these works to never been shown to anyone ever...
You don't hear of them, you don't see their works, but they are out there.
Yes, I know. But I still see it as a waste of time. What is the clue of writing a poem if I will burn it down? I would understand it if you vanish the works because you don't like them.
I mean: every artist feels attached to their own works. If they burn them, they are vanishing with them too.
Quoting god must be atheist
We are lucky this amazing writer never destroyed his works!
He had fully intended to.
Quoting javi2541997
Waste of time? No. The creative process is fun, and at times therapeutical.
Why destroy the works if they are great?
1. The world is not deserving of them.
2. I (the artist) have had my fun, and I'm selfish in not sharing the joy of admiring my pictures / words.
3. I am the greatest, the works I produced have been the greatest, but still... not great enough for me. (Most great people get great because they have a healthy measure of self-criticism, which they use to improve themselves, instead using it to stifle their own creative processes.)
4. They are political and I don't want my family tortured to death. (Think: Salmon Rashdi.)
5. They are controversial; I don't want the posterity to think of me as an asshole.
6. They are pornographic; I don't want my grandchildren to think of me as a perv.
7. They are revealing of family secrets. I don't want my wife, who loves me dearly, to dance on my grave and piss on my headstone.
ETC.
Why I am not deserve to see your works? Am I worse than you?
Who are we to judge the world doesn't deserve our works and art?
Quoting god must be atheist
It is fun and therapeutical, that's true. But the creative process needs a conclusion. Like a perfect circle where you start in a point and then you end up in the same but with recognition. I cannot conclude and close the circle if I burn or destroy my works. In most of the cases, artists tend to represent a expression of themselves and the society in their works. Thanks to their talent we can see "reality" with other eyes.
In the other hand: I bet that the artist who burns their works would end up regretting such action.
Interesting thought. I believe that great people do not necessarily know they are great, they are driven to become great. Studies have shown time after time that genius is not a gift without copious amounts of practice and work. The greats typically continue to improve their craft through their lifetimes and do not take what they have for granted.
In fact, a poison pill for a person's continued elevated status is to allow the accolades and successes one has obtained to go to their head. When one is "great", then one does not have to continue to work hard. This of course leads to the erosion of one's skills. Further, people are great because of those they surround themselves with as well. It is the rare myth of the lone genius who triumphs over all. Most people are able to become what they are because of the people they surround themselves with. If you "know" you're great, cockiness and arrogance can set in, driving away the people who helped make you a success to begin with.
To be truly great is a lifelong pursuit that requires humbleness. Humbleness is the accurate recognition of your capabilities without hubris. Humbleness is an awareness of your weaknesses so you can continue to improve. Other people appreciate those who are humble, and want to continue to support them in their continued growth.
Quoting Bartricks
To address this then, if you think you aren't a great thinker, but you want to be, then you can become a great thinker. An inaccurate assessment of yourself is the hallmark of a poor thinker. Someone who realizes they aren't that great but wants to be, has the makings of a great thinker.
Quoting Bartricks
I would say this is incorrect. Barring a minority of people, great thinkers are often appreciated. A person who has a few good thoughts but cannot communicate them in a way that the majority of people would appreciate has a lot of improvement to do.
Quoting Bartricks
In some cases this is correct. But if one is such a great thinker, they should be able to explain it to others in a way that most people will understand. If they can't, then they have a lot of improvement to do before they can be considered great thinkers. Anybody can create an idea that is understood by themselves to be great. That's what society tests. If you can't convince anyone else, its not that you're a special kind of genius that no one else can understand. Its that you are incapable of communicating your idea in a clear and convincing manner.
Ayyayyayy. You can't place a guilt trip on an artist who is placing a guilt trip on you.
In other words, please allow people their individuality, and individual judgment without judging them.
Or you can judge them, too, but unless you appeal to a higher authority, your judgment on them will be as impotent as their judgment on you. Except you still won't enjoy their art, which makes the match 0:1 on their favour.
No, it does not. Where did you get that? Leonardo da Vinci, one of the most prolific creators of all times, had been criticised by Michelangelo for not completing his works.
"In most cases..." yes, but there are the exceptions, if the cases you talk about are "most", and not "all".
I don't know... you seem to attribute a lot of your own values on a lot of people, without any actual reason but your own bias.
People are diverse. You can't make everyone comply to your values. And why should they? Because you don't see their point? Well, it's more of a report card on your inflexibility than a report card on reality.
It is not necessary to see "judgement" as a negative mark. We are even using the incorrect word here. I am thinking of recognition rather than judgement. I will always respect the artist's indidualism. Most of the artists are independent and individualistic. I just want to recognise their works. Why not?
Quoting god must be atheist
I am not referring to the works but the author.
Quoting god must be atheist
I see their point but I don't understand it. Simple. I guess the only who is inflexible here is you
You're right. I felt funny using that word. Judment carries too much notion of "condemnation". Whereas I meant it as a form of opinionating.
Well... the author creates the works. How can you seperate "author who never finishes his works" from the author? It is incredibly about the author. Not the works. Sorry.
Sorry. Yes, I guess I am inflexible because I can get out of my mind and am capable of understanding more diverse behaviour patterns. You, on the other hand, are more flexible, because you can't imagine how some behaviour patterns are possible, due to the fact that you can't understand them.
It is not possible at all, that's true (or at least, very difficult). But I am not referring (for example) of finishing a novel of 250 pages. That's not the type of "ending" I am thinking of. I am talking about recognition. If someone burns all their works he will never get recognition at all, so the circle will not be closed.
Well, at least that's how I see it...
... you are using sarcasm, right?
Yes. Exactly.
You make no case. Note: I made a case. You haven't addressed it. All you've done is express a view - one that is clearly false, as any knowledge of the lives of great artists and thinkers would tell you. But anyway, this is a philosophy forum, so you need to engage with the argument I made, not just express your unsupported view.
Quoting javi2541997
Again, you have not engaged with my argument and you also show your ignorance of the facts. Van Gogh did not paint for a hobby, rather he was a driven man who was (despite episodes of doubt - he was subject to extreme mood swings) convinced he was engaged in important work. He is famous in part for only having officially sold one painting in his own lifetime. What they don't mention is that he and his brother made no great effort to sell them and they charged a fortune for them, as they were playing a long game and didn't want to damage the brand by selling them cheap (he only sold one painting, but he sold it for a hell of a lot of money! 400 francs, to be precise. That's in the region of $10,000. (If you're wondering why anyone would give such a large sum for the work of an unknown artist painting in a very unusual style, it is because it was bought by the wealthy sister of a friend - Elizabeth Boch, sister of his friend Eugene - and so it was, in fact, a disguised donation. The important point is that 400 francs is the price he put on the work). He only sold one painting because his prices were ludicrously high - because he knew what he was producing was high quality work (he would give work away, but he wouldn't sell it cheap).
Quoting javi2541997
Er, again, you haven't engaged with my argument and you seem utterly ignorant of the facts. Once more: Van Gogh. He did not receive approval from the people and nor did he need it. And lots of the great philosophers were not recognized, or not properly recognized to be great, in their own lifetimes. Descartes was in no doubt about his own brilliance and was frustrated that he wasn't being lauded as much as he thought he ought to be; Hume was almost entirely ignored - at least as a philospher - in his own lifetime, and Berkeley too was not considered to be great, a fact that bothered him....because he knew his ideas were very important.
Again, I offered an explanation: if you don't think you're great, you won't try and do great things. And so you won't do great things. You need to think you're capable of doing great things to try and do them. You need to think you're great in order to deal with the fact that you're not going to be properly appreciated by those around you (unless they're as great, or nearly as great, as you are). Note, even those who are appreciated in their own lifetime are typically not fully appreciated in it and it often takes time - sometimes centuries - for the true value of their contributions to be recognized.
Or I just want to do great things because I want to, without the aim of being considered by the rest of the people. Maybe I just paint a portrait because I want to express myself not caring about being great
Furthermore, you started this post about recognising greatness, but you didn't provide a definition of great. Your arguments are based on a positive attitude towards our goals. Before to acknowledge that, we have to reflect on greatness. What do you consider as greatness? Because we all have different points of view and we shall not share the same view on greatness.
What they know is that they have found their way into a territory of thinking-creativity that seems to be virgin ground. As far as they know they are the first to arrive there. Their motivation for pursing their work is that they believe it to be true/valuable ( not just for them) and if they dont produce it they will not be able to find it anywhere else. To the extent that they consider what they do great it is not because of the intrinsic content of the work, which they may very well consider to be obvious or even commonsensical, but because of the failure of others to produce similar content. When probed, they may confess that it didnt seem to them to be a matter of their specialness so much as a certain relative stupidity on the part of their contemporaries. So only by comparison could they consider themselves great.
If i write a philosophical treatise that at first appears the only one of its kind, I may feel great for a while, that is, until l discover an entire community of philosophers , previously unknown to me, that has been producing almost identical content to mine. Nothing has changed about my work except my knowledge that it is not unique. Greatness is just this experience of the apparent distance separating ones valid ideas from others.
If Kant or Van Gogh were to appear for the fist time today they would not likely be considered ( or consider themselves ) great because their creative content is now commonplace.
I didn't say otherwise. The point, though, is that you need to think you're capable of doing great things in order to try to do them. And you need to try to do them if you're ever going actually to do them.
Thus, great thinkers and artists think they're great (and because they will them themselves great on the basis of having discerned themselves to be, they will also 'know' that they are great - that is, their belief will not be unjustified.
You don't need a definition of great. They - the great - discern their own greatness. You, like so many, seem to think that understanding and awareness comes from having definitions. If that were true we could solve all philosophical problems by use of the dictionary.
You're just making random assertions. You're not arguing anything or engaging with the argument I made.
Let's take this in small steps. Do you think someone can sincerely try and do something that they at the same time believe - really believe - they will fail to succeed at?
Isnt the question what it is they think they are trying to do rather than whether they are succeeding at it? When we first create our own art or philosophy we dont necessarily have a sense of how many others are out there doing something similar to us. What we know is that no one in our immediate vicinity is doing what we set out to do, so our initial motivation isnt going to be doing something great , it will be doing something that is unique relative to our immediate surroundings. Only later, by seeing how many others , if any, come out of the woodwork with a similar creative product, ca. we determine if what we have done is great, that is, absolutely unique in the world at that time.
No. It's this: Quoting Bartricks
Quoting Bartricks
I would say artists think they are different from the rest but not greater. They are aware of doing original works, completely distinct from we are used to see. Whenever an artist ends a work I don't think he has in mind thoughts as "look how great I am" but the mind rest of finishing a work where he feels unique, personal, individual, etc...
Thinking of being great after finishing something could be a sense of arrogance...
I conjecture that if we take the y axis as how well one recognizes oneself and the x axis as one's competence, the plot of the data from the corresponding research should be an inverted parabola. Being incompetent, one doesn't realize one is so; at a certain level of competence, one manages to generate a fairly accurate self-report; at high competence, one again fails the mirror test so to speak.
First, you're thinking that brilliant people are also virtuous people. There's no necessary connection. Brilliant thinkers and artists think they're brilliant. Whether that is consistent with being virtuous or not is beside the point.
Second, how is one arrogant if one believes that oneself is brilliant on the basis of discerning it?
For example, when I believe that I am alive - despite everyone else thinking me dead - on the basis of discerning my own existence, am I guilty of arrogance? Surely not. I'm dismissing the views of others, but I am not being arrogant in doing that, for I have access to evidence that they do not have access to (and that I know they lack access to).
From the outside it may sometimes be hard, sometimes impossible, to distinguish between the arrogant and those who are just accurately perceiving their own greatness, but that does not mean that both parties are arrogant. No, one is arrogant and one is actually brilliant and aware of it. They may both appear the same to you, but there's a big difference between them.
When a doctor judges that the mole on your arm is probably cancerous, and that same doctor is dismissive of the judgements of your friends, who all judge the mole just to be a mole, is the doctor being arrogant?
No. Your friends may judge her to be. But really it is they who are manifesting arrogance in that context. The doctor knows what she's talking about. Your friends do not. Yet your friends arrogantly assume that their ignorant views count for the same as hers and thus that her dismissal of them manifests arrogance.
It doesn't. They're the arrogant ones. So, when Van Gogh judged his own works to be masterpieces and dismissed the views of those who judged them to be childish and silly, he was not being arrogant. For his works were indeed masterpieces and he was perceiving this quality in them.
Another ignorant assertion.
It doesn't even make sense. if Van Gogh didn't come into existence in 1853, then his art would not have come into being in the late 19th century and exerted the huge influence it did throughout the 20th century. And so his influence would yet to have made itself known, because it has yet to exist. Thus he could make it known by bringing it into existence.
Kant and Van Gogh thought they were brilliant. Kant wrote fast - ludicrously fast - precisely becuase he was worried he was going to die and wanted to get his ideas down for posterity. He was in no doubt about their importance. Likewise for Van Gogh. Van Gogh also worked insanely fast becasue he knew he was important and had an important contribution to make, but was also convinced he did not have much time and would be dead before 40. He was right about all of that.
Great people know they're great. And if Van Gogh turned up again today, he'd produce new masterpieces.
I am not thinking there is a connection between brilliant and virtuous. Both concepts are so opened to interpretation. It wasn't even my original thought in this debate.
Well, to be honest with you, (now that you referred to such concept) I personally think virtue is something we should take care of in terms of art. It is not indispensable to hold virtues to be brilliant, but at the same time not everyone is capable of painting or writing. So, those who are capable are at the same time, virtuous.
Quoting Bartricks
You didn't mention any basis in your previous arguments. You just said that: "if we think we are brilliant, we would be capable of doing good works. If we don't think positive about ourselves?we would never try anything"
I already said that I am (more or less) agree with your point: yes, it is necessary to believe we are doing something "great" to keep doing our goals and works. But thinking "I am great" no matter the circumstances could be a symptom of arrogance because there will be always people who would not like our works and we have to accept it.
Again, I still think that, paradoxically, the great masters never thought they were greater than the rest. We are the ones who classified them as "great".
Quoting Bartricks
The friends are the ones who are acting arrogantly here. The doctor is doing his job. (I guess we are both agree in this case)
Quoting Bartricks
To be honest, I doubt Van Gogh ever judged his own works as "masterpieces". He thought he was doing different art from the rest and criticized those who didn't understand as childish because they weren't aware of such a good artist.
Nevertheless, this is not a good argument or conclusion in favour of Van Gogh. Art is an abstract interpretation. You are free to interpret it they way you want. I think is respectful to don't see Van Gogh as good as he (supposedly) seen himself.
Quoting Bartricks
Art works dont emerge in a vacuum. They belong to larger artistic movements , which belong to even larger trends that unite the arts , literature , music and other creative fields. Impressionism , Romanticism , Renaissance, Symbolism, Realism, Mannerism, Mondernism, Surrealism and Dadaism are just some examples of movements that pertained to visual art as well as literature and other creative domains. Van Goghs paintings arose of of the milieu of impressionism and pointed the way to post-impressionist directions in art. If we think of the impressionist artists Mamet, Monet, Renoir, Seurat and Degas there is no question each of them had their own unique style and contribution to make to impressionism.
But in terms of the innovations involved, each of their work had more in common within each other than any of them had with , say, Renaissance art. The impressionists shocked the art world because of the movement they had in common that had never been seen before , the idea that color and texture interaffected such that supposed monochromatic objects actually were composed of every color on the spectrum. As a post-impressionist, Van Gogh was among the first to show how inner feeling shapes what and how we see the world.
But he was not only one to do this, he just did it in his own unique and brilliant way. But now the art world has fully assimilated the impressionist idea of the interpenetration of color and the post-impressionist idea of the influence of inner feeling on the look of things. These ideas are no longer new or in the least bit shocking. If a Van Gogh or Monet were to emerge today for the first time, they would be seen as belonging to larger artistic movements that are no longer fresh, even if their version of it is unique. The movement they would be recognized as creating within (impressionist or post-impressionist) would now be labeled retro; it would appear familiar due to the other artists of their era who established that movement. There are plenty of retro artists on the scene. How many of these do you think are ever considered great?
Quoting Bartricks
Lets use Kant as another example. Kant has been widely read and many believe his ideas have been surpassed today. Most philosophers consider him old hat, and critiques of his work abound.
To think in strictly Kantian terms today is to be considered old-fashioned , a traditionalist or conservative. If Kant had not produced his writings in the late 18th century there would still have been a Romantic Idealist philosophical movement in Germany, because movements of thought are more than just individuals . Not every great thinker who came after him depended on his work directly. We still would have had the movements that followed his era and which put his kind of thinking into question.
As a result , if a Kant were to emerge today for the first time, his work would be recognized as belonging to an older era of thought which many in the field have surpassed. What made Kant great was that he was the originator of a movement, the fact that he was among the first to arrive at a new conception of philosophy. That movement , which included many others beside Kant , is no longer original, and so any new contributions that adhere to it today are not likely to be considered great.
Was Frank Sinatra great? Many think so , but since the crooning style of popular music has been out of fashion for 60 years, a Sinatra emerging for the first time today is not likely to get much more notice than a Harry Connick, Jr.
Quoting Bartricks
Here you introduce what looks like your basic premise: we only embark on a serious mission to accomplish a goal when we think success possible.
In the case of greatness, however, the path to success is filled with difficulty so, in pursuit of establishing the truth of your premise, you introduce a big obstacle in order to tackle it.
Quoting Bartricks
Pressing on, you assert the graceful confidence of the seeker (after greatness). Buried here is the premise grace dissolves the insecurity that causes self-defeat.
Quoting Bartricks
You then bolster this assertion by contrasting it with the counter-example.
Quoting Bartricks
The above is an argument for faith. It has some flavor of theism and some flavor of Norman Vincent Peale's The Power of Positive Thinking.
Next you picture the epistemological manhole through which seekers are expected to fall en route to failure. It will be your job to argue that the grace of the authentic seeker will transcend them over the gaping abyss of the manhole that swallows non-believers.
Quoting Bartricks
Quoting Bartricks
Above you state your mission: to show authentic seekers, through faith in themselves based on natural grace, escape the clutches of epistemic vice by "knowing" their greatness, believing in it and pursuing it to its natural conclusion: expression that brings new light to the masses of people.
Quoting Bartricks
Here's the main obstacle that you need to overcome: rationally justified belief, in this case, rationally justified belief that a seeker is not great.
Next you follow with a clincher argument borrowed from an unknown source.
Quoting Bartricks
Quoting Bartricks
Quoting Bartricks
Quoting Bartricks
Quoting Bartricks
In the next-to-last paragraph above, you put what I've called some flavor of "faith" and "the power of positive thinking" onto a rational foundation by asserting authentic seekers possess not only great and original thoughts but also great judgment in identifying the greatness of those thoughts.
With regard to the creator of a painting, a novel or a work of philosophy I think we have to break down the motivation into stages, not of simultaneous confidence and doubt( one only has one feeling at a time) , but of sequentially varying moods and beliefs , from confidence to doubt and back again.
A creative product doesnt just land fully completed in the lap of a writer or artist, with a sign attached to it saying great work. A great idea often comes first as an inkling, an intuition, a feeling or impression It may surprise us, seeming to come as a muse from outside us, as if we channel something we do not control. Our first thought is that we like what we have conjured but we need to see if it is robust rather than a fluke. Were we
mistaken in believing we were onto something substantial?
Once we convince ourselves that our delicate kernel of an idea is worth pursuing further all sorts of self-doubts arise as to whether and how we will be able to elaborate on what we have begun, and whether it is worth elaborating. Some ideas remain at the drawing board stage permanently , some we abandon for years before getting back to them and finding a way to complete. We simply have no way of knowing ahead of time which of these possibilities lies in store for our new project. Only in retrospect , or at least a certain ways down the road, do we look at the mature or maturing work and recognize it as substantial.
Quoting Bartricks
Thats right, he was trying to make up for lost time. For all you know he was piecing together fragments of ideas he began earlier in his life that he originally abandoned in a mood of failure.
So the feeling of failure is a constant accompaniment for many creative people as they go through the process of creation. Whether their effort will end in failure or success they wont know till its well on that way to completion. The feeling of confidence or failure for many is tentative and changes day to day in the creative
process.
Ernest Hemmingway said There's nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and open up a vein.
I am sure there are those authors who look back on earlier works of theirs and no longer consider them worthy, even consider them failures.A number of famous writers have committed suicide or drunk themselves to death, believing themselves to have been frauds.
Yes I did. It's in the OP. The great recognize their own greatness by discerning it. That's why they're not being epistemically irresponsible in believing themselves to be great, even when no-one else recognizes their greatness. (Just as, by analogy, I am not being epistemically irresponsible when I believe myself to be alive, even if everyone else believes - and believes justifiably - that I am dead).
There were two inter-related points I was making. First, the great will believe themselves to be great, for that seems to be required actually to be great. Second, the great will 'know' that they are great - not simply unjustifiably believe it - for their belief in their own greatness will be based on their having discerned it. So they have available to them evidence of their own greatness that others - most others, anyway - will not have access to.
That's also why they are not necessarily guilty of any arrogance just by virtue of believing themselves to be great. They are analogous to the doctor who believes that the mole is cancerous and is unfazed and dismissive of the fact all of your friends believe it to be benign. Their judgement about the mole is informed in a way that the judgement of your friends is not. Likewise, when a van gogh judges himself to be great, that judgement is that of an expert on greatness, a kind of expertise that very few others have. And thus when he was unfazed by and dismissive of those who thought his work incompetent, he was not thereby being arrogant.
Sometimes it is going to be hard, from outward behaviour alone, to distinguish between the arrogant and those with relevant expertise. The point, though, is that whether one is arrogant or not is not determined by other people's judgements about the matter. That the friends judge the doctor to be arrogant and themselves not to be, does not mean that the doctor is indeed the arrogant one.
Van Gogh believed himself to be a great artist and was very dismissive of the work of others, others who, at the time, were lauded as great. He was not thereby being arrogant. For he really was great and was discerning this, and the work of others really was rubbish, and he was discerning this as well.
Quoting javi2541997
He did. Read his letters. He considered his first proper masterpiece to be the potato eaters. He fell out with his best and only friend at the time precisely because that person - also an artist, though a very inferior one - criticized it. Like I say, Van Gogh was acutely aware of the greatness of his own work (and acutely aware when a work fell short of meeting his own standards). When it came to those who did not perceive the greatness of his own work, he was condescendingly indifferent. It was only when those whose judgement he prized to some extent - that is, judgements of artists whose work he had some time for - expressed criticism that he would lose his shit.
I have made a philosophical case for the great being aware of their own greatness: to be great is to be able to recognize what is great - for how else would one go about producing great works or thoughts without exercising that ability? And to be great is to have done great things, which one could not do unless one attempted to do them - something that requires belief that one can do them.
But note too how psychologically implausible it is to suppose that these great artists were not confidently aware of their own brilliance. Van Gogh received almost nothing but criticism from others. Virtually nobody - save his brother (and even then, his brother was not overly enthusiastic about it until the final two years) and a clutch of other artists. To continue in the face of such a combination of indifference and outright hostility demonstrates the presence of an inner conviction that one is doing something important - that one knows that one is, despite not having any publicly verified evidence that one is.
That is because the artist would suffocate. Quoting Joshs
IF you can't see that Van Gogh's paintings are brilliant outside of their historical context, then you have no eye.
How can a work of art be great if its greatness is always relative to some other work, either that produced at the time or earlier? You will be off on a regress and will have to conclude either that there are no great works at all and can never be, or that there is in reality an infinite number of works of art. Neither of those views is true, of course.
Although Van Gogh had a tremendous amount of knowledge of the history of art, he did not need that knowledge to know that the art he was producing was brilliant, or to produce brilliant work.
Quoting Joshs
You are mistaking what might have contributed to making his works great, with their greatness itself. The greatness of a work of art is not reducible to the particular properties that make that work great. That is, to have produced something is not to 'be' it, and so those qualities in a van gogh that make it great are not what the greatness itself is. Another work that has the same qualities - that is, a work that is trying to capture the feelings a scene evokes could be utter rubbish.
Quoting Joshs
What's that got to do with anything? At the time of production, Van Gogh's works were considered unfiinished childish rubbish by virtually everyone. But they were not. By your lights they would be, given that you think that the fact they would cause similarly dismissive judgements if produced today is evidence that they would not be graet if produced today. Some people do not learn, it seems.
The sunflower flower series, if produced today, would be received with teh same indifference it was at the time. And it'd be just as great.
You can see this for yourself if, that is, you genuinely discern their greatness. For you can simply take a well illustrated history of art book, break its spine, and rearrange the paintings in it so that Van Gogh's works appear at a quite different point or distributed throughout. Now, the sunflowers will stand out as great works wherever they happen to turn up in this now random collection of reproductions. (The same will be true, I think, of the other great works contained in that work).
But even if that's not true and the greatness of a work of art is partly a function of the context in which it is produced, that does not affect anything I have argued in the OP. Everything said there remains true, or at least unchallenged.
The difference between the indifference Van Goghs subjectivist art evoked in the late 19th century and the underwhelming response it would receive now is the difference between a phenomenon too radical for its time to be fully understood ( subjective expressivist painting) and that same phenomenon already well understood a century later. Contemporaries of Van Gogh couldn't grasp the new concept of subjectivism, so they likely saw his work as sloppy, immature, undisciplined, lacking in skill. Today, no discerning art critic would view a subjectivist style painting in those terms. They would instead recognize and appreciate all those elements which were missed by Van Goghs contemporaries. But todays great artworks are the products not only of impressionism and subjectivism, but many artistic developments that have built upon these movements. A great art work indicates in its structure a consciousness by the artist of the sedimented history of art up through their time.
A Van gogh first appearing today would expose the artist as someone whose art fails to take into account what has been learned since the late 19th century in the history of art. That would make it of lesser interest to current critics and collectors than art which tips its hat to the sedimented history of 20th and 21at century art, and in so doing tells something about who we are today and how we have changed since the 19th and 20th centuries.
Quoting Bartricks
Every new phase in the history of Western art involved the discovery of a dimension of seeing that built on what came before ( the rendering of a proportionately accurate sculptural figure in Greece, mastery of light source and perspective in the Rennaisance, secularizing of narrative themes in Holland, discovery of nature as a system in Romantic painting. discovery of perceptual relarionality in Impressionism, discovery of Kantian categorical framing in abstract art, etc.). Once each of these insights were made( simultaneously painterly and philosophical), it became impossible to see the world without them, to simply go back to what had been done prior, without offering something boring and predictable in comparison with the daring of the new artistic discovery.
One could take any page randomly from a history of art book and appreciate it as beautiful , but to be considered great it would have to be seen as in some way conveying something new and innovative in the ways of thinking and valuing of the time in which it was produced.
Believing that one is great does not imply that one is indeed great.
Which serves to raise the issue, if your "greatness" is unrecognised, then by what criteria are you great? If at all?
My suspicion is that it will be difficult to identify a criteria that does not depend on public recognition.
Quoting Joshs
That's very elegant.
Some have claimed that it is pointless to work at creative development without desiring recognition. That is an unwarranted claim. Some write in order to find out how they think, paint in order to find out how they see or play music for relaxation or as a form of meditation or to alter consciousness. Any of these pursuits may be undertaken simply for the love of self-development.
Understandable. But what I don't see is why you are using a logical premise system to describe the greatness of an artist. According to your analysis, it looks like that it is necessary to reach premise 1 and premise 2 to reach the greatness in a work.
Again, I still think your points are only the way you see them. There are other artists who don't think about themselves that they are "great" but nonetheless, they are amazing creators and most of the people recognised them.
So, the evidence in greatness is a complex cause. As I said previously, we are debating about abstract concepts such as art and literature. Whatever you think is great, it could be in the average for others. Just look at Picasso. There are a lot of people who really like his works, but in the other hand, others who just don't see his talent...
Where is the evidence of Picasso's greatness?
Picasso never thought he was great. He painted trying to change the rules of his period.
Each artist has their own specific context.
Quoting Bartricks
No, I don't see any analogy here. The doctor is doing his job and putting in practice his knowledge after years of studying. Doctor gives me an analysis of the cancerous mole. He doesn't think about himself: I am great so I guess this mole is cancerous...
That's what every doctor does. It is his job and what is being paid for.
Sorry but I don't see a correlation between the practice of medicine and abstract practice as art or literature.
Quoting Bartricks
What I said: arrogance.
Quoting Bartricks
But be able to recognise what is great we should define greatness in the first place and I don't think it is easy to find out a definition of such abstract concept.
What is the meaning of greatness Bartricks? Do you consider yourself as great?
:up:
Yes, I do. Some people know that success often comes after many failures. Others have guts and determination. I've had far more failures than successes. Failures are wonderful to learn from, if one has such a mindset.
It's not a matter of "if" one will fail when trying something new or novel. It's a matter of how one handles such times of strife. That is when character is shown, despite the common belief that such times 'build character'.
The above describes some important psychological traits of the winner. Self-confidence is bid as a ground of success, even to the highest levels of human achievement. The key to the above claim is its partnering of believing and knowing. The great believe they are great, and they know they are great.
The delicate balance between believing and knowing is the key to success regarding human endeavor.
It's kind of tricky because it's true that the great knowing they're great is not entirely justifiable. For this reason, the battle between knowledge of greatness and skepticism of greatness is so crucial to outcomes.
We humans can't succeed on the basis of our human power alone. We also need a higher power. The knowing part of success is what we know based upon our exercise of reason. The believing part of success is what is based upon what we receive by utilizing trans-rationality, better known as faith.
Trans-rationality is the thing that potentially empowers all human individuals to access and express greatness. Trans-rationality employed or not employed is the only difference between the great human individuals and the undistinguished human individuals.
Trans-rationality is the unseen window in the room without windows. For this reason, paradoxes should be embraced at the same time they're excluded.
Trans-rationality, the in-betweener, when utilized, establishes a bond between the human individual and the circumambient universe and, beyond that, the super-ordinate universe. Within the Christian faith, trans-rationality, the in-betweener, stands presently known as the Holy Ghost. Trans-rationality is partly reason and partly the unknowable known.
The unknowable known is hard for us to wrap our minds around because it entails more than mind. It entails more than reason. It entails more than perception.
Is the unknowable known perceived by the third eye? Perhaps.
The upshot is that greatness i.e., a going beyond the everyday is mostly but not entirely justifiable. This I say when justifiable means logically whole and internally consistent. Existence almost makes good sense, but not completely.
Jesus, with his departure to heaven at hand, gave comfort to his believers with a description of the Holy Ghost, a power that would keep them connected to Jesus, thus giving them comfort during his absence.
Trans-rationality unlocks the door to the doorless prison cell. Reason, essential though it be, becomes a prison when access to the realm that navigates a ghostly course between natural logic and what lies beyond it, for one reason or another, gets denied.