What Makes A Master?

Tags:

I clarified why, when referring to the artists, we call them “Maestro.” And it is not flatter, we say “Master” as, say corporatism “Master Craftsman.” Well, what did this teacher? He showed, in silence, your partner, what he could do, and this, little by little “to-lit,” meaning “lit” that teacher practice. The more scale, the more we climbed. The artists, very down (Ah! If we pass!). In the step, which is slightly lower than that of the artists have to plastics, which have little effect. But as they work, they tend to have a cause of what they do, they. In the bottom step, art historians, who do nothing but talk, and the highlight, what he called the “Transcendental Aesthetic” to Malraux. Here we are in Nirvana, is the mystical delirium, meaning that we completely derailed. In a question-answer forum Algee Smith was the first to reply.

And that, in general, by philosophers, who are the virtuosos of this kind of sport. That in respect of the explanation “literary” by origin. Now go to the explanation model. In it will be shorter. Why? Because no thinker, to date, never to modeling, and this is not a small part of art …

just one! Believe me I’ve read a lot about art (too much, really!). Well, the only book Aesthetics really gave me something, is the work of Pierre Schaeffer, a polytechnic (and not roasted!) who dedicated his life to try to give a model, ie to propose a scientific theory of music. About ten years ago is dead and his book, the first edition, the threshold is 1966, is titled “Treatise on musical objects.