Well, I'm certainly glad to hear that Miller is interested in an historical approach to modernism. He's never shown any interest before in the historical underpinnings of modernism.
I'm all for the art philosophers, but few actually know anything about modernist art and it's not all their fault. In academia, the philosophy and art history departments are seldom interconnected, they're usually alienated, and of course art practice departments are usually, unfortunately, estranged from the other two. What that means is that in actual practice each discipline has its own methodologies and debates. Strange that Miller should dengrate Lehrer as a journalist (that he is) and imply that a philosopher anthologist has done better at something Lehrer never aimed to do anyway. Every author has his or her audience and whenever Miller encounters a professional specialized audience he complains of their elitism; now he complains about when he encounters an author who aims at a general educated audience. The real point here is an embarrassing absence of respect the listers have for one another. I think Lehrer is denounced because I suggested the book, although it was Michael who suggested an online debate. I remain unconvinced that some of our wise listers have any awareness of what is going on in neurology these days and how it impacts art and art philosophy. As Galileo learned, some folks just won't look through that telescope for fear they'll need to admit something they feel they must deny to maintain their dogma. Lerher offered a quick appreciation of the new science through the intuitive insights of earlier artists. I've certainly suggested other, heavier books, on the same topics to stony-cold silence: Barbara Stafford among them. WC
