I like William's remarks about Monet. As a publisher, I was often startled to
find the author of a warm, understanding, perceptive, lovable novel was
personal beast. Insiders knew that funny, cuddly James Thurber was so
gratuitously
vicious that assistants ran and hid if they knew he was coming into the
office. Those exeriences prompted me to write these lines to be spoken by an
editor
in a forthcoming play:
". . .You want a speech about randy writers I have known? Writers can be
callous sex-bandits, bigots, liars, social phonies -- and still be great
writers.
But all the greats -- the shits and the good guys -- would agree: keep your
brain in its place; there are times when you have to grab a wave and ride it
before you've got it all figured out."
I'm not sure William is right about the following, however -- though he may
be:
> "Van Gogh's switch from the dark toned, rough work to
> the more impressionist-like work shows his desire to
> be up to date with the Parisian avant garde and thus
> reveals a desire for acceptance by a sophisticated and
> empathic audience."
>
I imagine the possibility Van Gogh was merely developing as a painter,
evolving into the style that was working its way out of his inner being, just
as
many writers and composers have done. This is not to say they were not
influenced
by the work of other avant creators they saw, but it is to claim the "mature"
style may not have been adopted simply to win favor with the powers that were
. But maybe William can cite something from the letters where Vincent
confesses exactly that strategy.
**************
Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with
Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4?&
NCID=aolfod00030000000002)
