In a message dated 9/11/08 12:24:06 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Unless you can share some more quotes from the interview, Cheerskep, we
> must
> conclude that you are only assuming that " Sendak deludedly believes there
> "exist" two distinct "real", ontic categories of visual creators -- artists
> and illustrators -- and he himself classifies illustrators as "mere"."
>
> Which is the kind of assumption you often make as you interrupt a
> conversation
> to begin flogging the dead horse you've dragged in for that very purpose.
>
When you say. . .
"Unless you can share some more quotes from the interview, Cheerskep, we must
conclude that you are only assuming that " Sendak deludedly believes there
"exist" two distinct "real", ontic categories of visual creators -- artists and
illustrators -- and he himself classifies illustrators as "mere"."
. . .which aspect, Chris, are you merely pretending to doubt I had evidence
for and thus am "assuming"?
That he refers to himself as a "mere illustrator"? He was quoted in the Times
as saying that, with quotation marks around the utterance, and I put quotes
around them in my posting.
That he believes there are two separate classes of visual creators --
"artists" and "illustrators"? When the Times reporter put the question to him,
"Which
are you?" he didn't reject the dichotomy, he chose one, implying he indeed
believes there are two distinct, existent classes.
That it's a deluded belief? But that's what this thread has been all about,
Chris. I think I've been making my argument at my usual tedious length. I don't
whether to be dismayed or comforted that you haven't noticed at all.
**************
Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
