I'm OK with Miller's comments re the non-specialist's judgments. But since all art is so intertwined with both historical formalist and symbolic patterns, and is, after all, human, a specialist in one of its forms is never completely out of tune with other less familiar forms. Of course, intimate and sensitive access to any artform requires more than casual acquaintance.
Re Miller's reference to my lifetime work, Miller attended the opening of my show of NEW work -- 20 of the 25 ptgs. from the past 14 months. My 50 year retrospective opens Jan. 30. with 63 ptgs. since 1958. He mentioned my tired eyes. Actually, I feel pretty good but no one is 30 when they're bumping 72 and have had their share of being chopped up and beamed by buzzing rays, to say nothing of surviving as an artist under the vulgar, oppressive, spirit-killing, lying, gleaming rhine-stone brightness of American popular materialist culture. WC --- On Sun, 1/18/09, Chris Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: competent people with discerning taste and knowledge > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected], [email protected] > Date: Sunday, January 18, 2009, 9:57 AM > >My appreciation for Medieval art, Mesoamerican art, and > some other large > categories took a while: there was no instantaneous > metanoia, no thunderbolt > that knocked me off the horse. (Michael Brady) > > That was my point -- the rarity of thunderbolts -- and > that's why > critics/curators/experts should not be expected to deliver > good judgments > within unfamiliar/unloved genres. > > > Absent judgment -- all the critic can offer is a kind of > descriptive taxonomy > -- like the reviews found in "Art in America". > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Click for free info on IT degrees and make up to $150K/ > year. > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/PnY6rc1pvKSXAToUTsGI37U0y6Uhef > n9c306i3wDuCHZXFKloS6As/
