> I agree with that last line. In the book I say rule number one is, if the > novel is well, don't go near it with these diagnostic tools I've just given. > No > editorial diagnostic tool, no "rule book" guide, can prove a novel must be > ill. > But if sensibility tells you it IS ill, saying why isn't always as easy as > it > seems. > > Now, accepting that, you've never looked at a WOA and felt it was "wrong" > and > were sure you could see why? Behind this activity you'd have to have a > description of what you have in mind with the word 'wrong'. Editorially, you > could > reasonably call something "wrong" if you can discern it is having an effect > that you know the writer does not want, and you'd have to be convinced it > would > have that effect not just on you but on the almost all the writer's "ideal > intended readers". If the writer's chooses, knowingly, to alienate all his > readers, then you the editor can choose, knowingly, not to publish his book > if > you > want. You might still call him "wrong", but not because he has made a > mistake > in > his writing, only in his reputation. > > I don't know if intent is part of "wrong" in visual things. I can see > things "wrong",sometimes they are missed opportunities and I just have to > assume > that the painter didn't want that particular gleam or shadow even if it would > have worked better. Also one person's right is another person's so what. A > lot of people like Bougereau very much but in a general sort of way I don't > care even though I can see how good he is. And the feel of something comes > into it too-I can't stand Kathe Kollewitz, I see her as lugubriously > sentimental and polemic while others see her as powerful and deeply felt. I > like > Adolph Menzel a lot-not the history things but the Berlin scenes and the > drawings. For me they really hit it and in that case if I saw something I > thought was > "wrong" or felt he'd wasted an opportunity I would think about it > seriously where I wouldn't with Kollewitz or Bougereau. And there's always > the > feeling of extreme cynicism when someone says look at the "famous name > here" in a > museum, and one thinks no, it can't be, and you walk over, read the name, > and it isn't. All this is aside from issues of drawing or color or clumsy > paint handling,examples of which can be found in nearly everything and which > are > almost always egregious nitpicking. I think the most obvious "wrong" is > when you get a good painter and,usually late in his career,he gets serious > about Art, and starts making what he considers Art. Off hand,Corot did some > stuff > like that,Turner did,Constable. Watson and the Shark is one of the > funniest examples of making Art. > KAte Sullivan > > > > > ************** > One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, > Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp& > icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025) > > >
************** One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp& icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
