There's a big difference between the man in the street pronouncing and promoting a judgment about an important artist in history, one whose work has been scrutinized for centuries, and one who is deeply informed about that artist and the literature examining him/her. Miller seems to think that the most ordinary judgment is equal to the most informed. I don't understand why the work of artists are open to instant judgment by anyone while few casual bystanders would dare to pass judgment on, say, some new findings in microbiology or astrophysics. Yes, absolutely, any idea, artwork, or person may be challenged although challenges are strengthened or weakened by the knowledge, insight, and clarity informing them.
(Whoever brings nothing but an offhanded scurrilous remark to what is assumed to be an happy glen for reasoned and insightful critique, alerts yonder swampy crocodiles to the prey.) Miller's habit is to state the most popular, and thus most degraded, view of art as if it were somehow a valid entry to a specific artist's status or work. These approaches have little value because they confuse fanciful realities with the less obvious and more elusive truth. Why doesn't Miller get straight to the art instead of telling us, again and again, how annoyed he is with museums, art schools, art professors, and modernism and anything else that has left the age of steam and iron behind? He could, for instance, give us a clear comparative rundown on the late Titian vis-a-vis the early Titian and the Venetian School and point us to the faults in Titian's late style and explain why they are faults in contrast to some early (or other contemporary) successes. In other words, what informs Miller's opinions? WC ________________________________ From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 7:18:01 AM Subject: Re: On Monday on Charlie Rose: "Picasso: Mosqueteros" 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/
