All of the mportant Renaissance art scholars think Titian's late works are among his best and among the best of any. There's something very shocking about Miller tossing off an opinion of Titian's art. I'm steeped in art and have seen quite a few Titians of all periods and I wouldn't dream of spouting an opinion of the master's work. As arrogant as I am, I am humbled by Titian and I think Miller should creep away in shame from his thoughtless statement. Almost ditto for his remarks regarding Picasso's late works. WC
________________________________ From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 9:28:45 AM Subject: Re: On Monday on Charlie Rose: "Picasso: Mosqueteros" So, what did you think about last night's show, Joseph ? (for whose who missed it, most of the content can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/arts/design/26picasso.html ) It made me think of Ian McKellen's "King Lear" (shown last week on Public Television) -- except that Shakespeare was only 50 when he wrote poetic rantings for an old lunatic. Did you buy John Richardson's pitch ? Was this a "great late period" ? (I didn't -- but then, I don't think Titian's last works were very good either -- i.e., if he weren't Titian, nobody would care.) Since these later works are mostly unfamiliar to us -- this would be a good opportunity to run a version of the Miller test. Show the collection to a first year art student, and ask her to do a bunch of work in the same style. Then, test to see whether anyone can tell the difference. BTW -- does anyone know much about John Richardson? Has he ever written about art instead of the lives of those who make it? ____________________________________________________________ Click now for low cost, approved defensive driving courses! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxP7fz75XtFqgybcDWywX3Eqs QkIzmJBS8khyotFjXcBHIoS1aCchi/
