Robert Peters wrote:

>Can't we stop saying e.g.  Beethoven was a genius but start saying: he
>was a human being with faults and weaknesses but with an astonishingly
>craft and gift in writing music that can still move and electrify? Isn't
>that enough?

This will probably infuriate at least one person.  As to what genius is,
why should we waste time worrying about it? Usually the only people I know
who do waste time worrying about it are artists ("Am I a genius?") and
Congresspersons ("How do we get more geniuses and stay competitive in a
global economy?").  Can a genius do stupid things? Can a genius regularly
produce terrible art, or is it by the works that you know a genius?

In the first case, it's part of our elevation of artists to demi-god or
saint status, now that art to a great extent substitutes for religion.
Orwell noted this as early as the essay "Benefit of Clergy," but one
can see traces of it as early as the 18th century.  I. B. Singer said
at least once that he wouldn't have crossed the street to meet Tolstoy,
because the person wasn't as interesting as the art that person created.
I myself don't think our present fascination with artists rather than works
very healthy.  At the least, it interests me less.  I'd much prefer to find
out the impossible:  why is this piece good?

Steve Schwartz