Geez, you mother and I go away for the weekend, and when we come back,
you're at each other's throats! What's wrong with you?
Now, listen to me:
William's writes the most incisive and insightful comments on art
history, cultural matters, and, of course, painting. He makes a lot of
sense. You can take that from me, a Benedictine- (not Jesuit-) trained
artist.
Cheerskep, you've got to get off that "is" thing once in a while. It
doesn't always depend on what the meaning of "is" is, but you're
guilty of constantly bringing it up "just because you can."
Miller: Curators aren't the spawns of Satan, gallery and museum
exhibitions aren't elaborately rigged game shows of the 50s, and smart
artists and art teachers aren't some kind of pedagogue-o-philes
leading the children astray.
Now, let's get back to the earlier topic, "Envisioning," which I
began. It's made it through about 20 comments. Maybe it has staying
power.
Or we can take up William's request to read Lehrer's Proust Was A
Neuroscientist. But I must stipulate that we all agree on one or two
ground-rules. 1. We read the book and, in our initial posts, restrict
our comments to summaries of various parts of the book; and 2. We
don't read ahead of the rest, take up positions on the parapet, and
throw rocks down on the author or the text as others are still coming
up the path. This happened with Paglia's "Sexual Personae" and pretty
much wrecked our effort; the group kept better on task with
Aristotle's Poetics.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
