Clonker? What an unbelievable comment from an artist about a truly great genius. None of us, no one living, for sure, can say anything about any Titian so arrogantly summative as "clunker".
I can't let it go without crying out in anguish! With words like clunker aimed at any Titian, I die a little and and imagine myself among barbarians. Some artists, some artworks, are truly beyond our -anyone's--ridicule. Certainly Titian is one of them. If you think his work is deficient then look to yourself for the deficiency. I'm about as arrogant and ego-driven and haughty as any real artist but in the face of artists like Titian, I examine his work to the depths I can reach. Otherwise I hope for more insight. Never would I dare to deride his achievements. It's a grand and vain ambition to even try to match the least of his abilities. See Delacroix's Journals for enlightening comments on the great masters. If that's not enough, read Aurlius. Then Montaigne. Then Cervantes. Then Van Gogh. Then even Mark Twain. Then weep for your foolishness and beg the spirits of those giants to forgive you lest they abandon you in the studio to fumbling darkness and morbid silence. WC ________________________________ From: armando baeza <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 3, 2009 5:10:35 PM Subject: Re: Judging the late Titian correction Chris, For me, seeing Dian and Actaeon by Titan ,for the first time, I also come away with the feeling that it's a 'clonker' regarless of who painted it. Compositionally , it is complicated an contrived, though done by a master. Every artist no matter how great has it's clonkers. to me, this is one. Picasso also had clonkers, but how can you beat these guys for uniqueness ? I happen to love this clonker. On Apr 2, 2009, at 7:57 AM, Chris Miller wrote: > Before launching an attack on Titian's late work -- I thought I'd > take another > look on the internet -- and realized that it was only a few pieces > that I > can't stand -- especially those two that were recently in the news: > "Diana and > Actaeon" along with "Diana and Callisto" -- as shown here: > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7584902.stm > > Do I really need to explain how jumbled these are? They should be > cut up to > protect the good areas from the bad. > > (and I also can't stand the two statues in the background of his last, > probably unfinished, painting, "Pieta") > > Regarding the rest of William's assertions -- I do not agree that > "one who is > deeply informed about that artist and the literature examining him/ > her" is > necessarily a better judge of aesthetic quality than anyone else -- > although, > I would also not say that "most ordinary judgment is equal to the most > informed" > > We just have a different idea as to what qualifies as "most informed". > > I've been getting into the culture of Hindustani music a bit, > lately, and in > one memoir, the author wrote of an old man coming up to her and > her teacher > (a famous singer) and recalling a concert he had heard 30 years > earlier, and > then making a thoughtful, and very useful comment. He clearly was > knowledgeable about the art, but he was nothing like a professional > scholar. > > Could a non-professional scholar make a good judgment about some > new findings > in microbiology or astrophysics? I don't know - perhaps - but it > seems less > likely, because a good judgment in those fields requires > familiarity with a > large body of evidence and theory -- while the only evidence > required to judge > a painting is presented by > the painting itself, and theory should be irrelevant except as a > way to > explain a judgment that's already been made. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Internet Security Software - Click here. > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/ > BLSrjnxQZBmQ3C2rA5fXZw7G6HMxTc > U7LLTEvafX9rHUC7N6ftnxRjm8pe4/
