How important is a consensus of scholarly opinion? If "all of the important Renaissance art scholars think Titian's late works are among his best and among the best of any" -- then public art museums would have a strong incentive to display them - and anyone who wants to appear knowledgeable should stand behind it.
But that doesn't preclude such opinions from being challenged, does it? Even William has often told us that "the jury is always out" Picasso is the poster child for Modernism, a phenomenon at least as political as it is aesthetic. So challenging his reputation is an attack upon the institutions of the artworld as we know them. It would be like challenging the legacy of Ronald Reagan at the Republican National Convention. But I think that reputations should always be challenged (eventually, they will be, anyway), and there's something quite pernicious about the category of art super-star - where an artist is worshiped as much as a religious prophet or Emperor-God used to be - and is surrounded by flatterers instead of serious students. I also think that, within a conversation, reporting on a consensus of scholarly opinion is about as dumb a contribution as can be made. That's the stuff found in high school textbooks. BTW - I enjoyed Cheerkep's back-handed compliment: "Richardson deserves to be proud of what he's done in service of Picasso's reputation" -- as if that reputation could have been enhanced one, teeny bit. Richardson is a high brow gossip columnist, so it seems quite appropriate whenever he is recognized as a leading authority within the artworld. ____________________________________________________________ Be there without being there. Click now for great video conferencing solutions! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxPnB5HRwXRtHb3f0wSuXHXyt kZiuiw23YvDamhAvxJZcpyMWqT25S/
