Michael: Will those who haven't done their reading be allowed to audit this
course?
Geoff C
From: Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Wassa matta wich you kids?
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 19:01:38 -0400
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]
