Other than personally attacking me and flattering William, what have you
contributed to this topic, Michael ?
And, might you point to any phrase on this thread where I have "impugned the
integrity both of the scholarship and the moral character of scholars,
curators, artists, and others who work in the different institutions of art"
?
I've only gone after "the school boys" -- i.e. those who, rather than share
their own experience or introduce us to specific scholars, just present a
supposed consensus of scholarly opinion.
(as William does when he writes "I for one am able to assess the scholarship,
the evidence, re Titian. I am not going to take the time to do it".)
We might as well just skip any discussion, and go directly to Wikipedia
(which really is compiled by school boys) where we can read the following:
"Athough his mature works may not contain the vivid, luminous tints of his
early pieces, their loose brushwork and subtlety of polychromatic modulations
are without precedent in the history of Western art."
*************
In this discussion of Titian, and in many others, Miller specifically speaks
out, not by offering an informed opposition to William's statements, but by
impugning the integrity both of the scholarship and the moral character of
scholars, curators, artists, and others who work in the different institutions
of art--and personally of William. They are the kept souls, pawns or dupes or
active participants with the vile forces of crass commerce and
self-congratulating power.
He claims that he can educate himself (how? from whom? from what sources?) and
hone his aesthetic awareness, taste, and ultimately judgment independently of
the mainline art world. But this is merely a misdirection, intended to take
our attention off his main purpose, maligning art historians, critics,
curators, and even artists.
When William writes on any art topic--and on most cultural topics--he writes
with knowledge of current and historical facts, and he writes with clarity and
evident familiarity and understanding of the topics. His messages are always
worth paying attention to. It's a mark of true humility for an intelligent
listener to acknowledge the cogency of his
comments. That doesn't mean that everyone must agree with William, but
everyone should respond with an equal appreciation for the facts, for the
logic of arguments, for reasonable clarity of expression. Miller doesn't do
that. Instead, he claims the supremacy of autonomous experience. BFD. Everyone
has experiences.
When it comes to the topic at hand, he announced "Before launching an attack
on Titian's late work" and then, after a few left-handed dismissals of the
paintings, proceeds to say "We [William and he] just have a different idea as
to what qualifies as 'most informed' [about aesthetic judgment].'" In other
words, it doesn't matter what others who have taken a long career studying
Titian have to say, when he has an opinion, too. And besides, art scholars
aren't to be trusted.
This isn't a matter of some outsider or naif offering some unexpected insight,
of some nonexpert speaking out of turn, or of a professor taking umbrage at
others who "reverence their own opinion more than they do his." (That's
beneath you.) It's a matter of conducting our discussions with more respect
and intelligence than Miller bothers
with.
____________________________________________________________
Let great B to B marketing solutions propel your brand to new heights! Click
now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxX0BRN2PaENk9D3AiwA8HYk1
NgT79mikrTw4zLZ75qrZ8HEyGyJ9G/
