revisiting me and artifacts

                                           
                                              
 My view may not be a popular one, but I learned
early on a made object is only as good as are  
the judgments of those who attend it.  This does     
not mean that a maker of an object can avoid  
being concerned about quality; but it does mean
that whatever the medium or mediums, whatever   
the tools, whatever the construction, however
refined the maker's judgment is, the values of  
a finished artifact exist beyond the opinions of
the person who made it.  Therefore, once a maker
has crafted an artifact and is willing to share  
it with others, those others should be allowed  
to discern its worth.  The maker can answer any
questions about it, but should not get on a high
horse about it.  If no artifact a certain person
makes is considered exceptional or even mildly  
good, then that's that person's maker fate.  One
does what one is moved to do, and if what one is
moved to do results in objects unacceptable to   
this or that coterie, so be it.                 
                                                
It is a horrid mistake to fashion something just
to appeal to the promoters of some current taste.
                                                  
In the poetry sphere there is always someone or    
a group--usually more than one--practicing and   
advocating a different way to make poems.  What  
else would one expect as arguments fly like rooks
out of night?  All such is interesting / useful.   
                                                 
I, however, despite how often I/ proffer comments,
remain aloof.                                        
                                                    
                                                   
                                               
                                              
                                                 
Rho00125