>> it is knowledge) of that first [engine] is not
the
>> same knowledge as the knowledge of the fiftieth
>> [engine].
Donal: Hardly. For even o[i]f the knowledge is not
"the same" that does not mean it is
as "knowledgeable" in both cases.
_________________
I'm glad Donal is getting into this. Maybe he can
straighten out my thinking and writing and help me
understand why I am so uneasy about John's
comparison of understanding the subway to Turner
understanding his painting. Okay, my first
argument about synthetic-versus-analytical is just
plain wrong. But, let me take Donal's last point:
>> For even if the knowledge is not "the same"
that does not mean it is
as "knowledgeable" in both cases.
Here I can pinpoint what bugs me. After five years
of studying the subway, I will probably know more
about the subway than in year one.
However, after five years, an artist will not
necessarily be more knowledgeable about his
painting--only different. If artistic knowledge
were always cumulative, then we would pay no
attention to Picasso's blue period paintings but
only his later-style paintings. These later
paintings would be where the artistic knowledge
was. We would consider Rachmaninoff's Rhapsody on
a Theme of Paganini to be totally superior to his
Symphony no. 1--which it isn't.
Artists mature, yes, but that isn't always the
same as gaining more artistic knowledge. Sometimes
it means a cooling down of vision, or getting
trapped in their own style. Whereas someone
studying the subway can reasonably expect to know
more over time.
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
