Certainly not.
so they are discussing the nature of who is consider a creator? it seems that they consider a craftsman someone who physically makes the piece, and that you are classified as an imitator based on if you replicate the work?
3 Matching Annotations
- Last 7 days
-
learn-us-east-1-prod-fleet01-beaker-xythos.content.blackboardcdn.com learn-us-east-1-prod-fleet01-beaker-xythos.content.blackboardcdn.comRepublic2
-
-
a human beingwho knows every craft as well as everything else anyone knows, and thatthere is nothing of which he does not have a more exact knowledge thananyone else, we should assume we are talking to a naïve fellow. He hasbeen deceived, it seems, by an encounter with some sort of sorcerer orimitator, whom he therefore considers to be all-wise. But that is becauseof his own inability to distinguish between knowledge, lack of knowledge,and imitation
are they trying to insinuate that an artist is simply an imitator that fools a viewer that they are a craftsman? as well as a viewer being a fool for believing a painter to be a craftsman?
-
- Jan 2024
-
newrepublic.com newrepublic.com
-
Plants are natural. Plants are normal.
I understand but question his thinking. It's more of saying we can't put someone on death row because he is still human, which is true, but what makes something as natural to it's predecessor, I would say it's based on the value of negative influence it could rotationally have. Simply, is the author saying this because of his experience with it himself?
-