Since Miller's weird post about my being a virgin when it comes to analysis and Cheerskep's pompous remarks about my reasoning -- misconstrued, as usual-- I can see that my contributions here are wasted.
Since Cheerskep is tireless in his insistence about us defining terms, even commonplace terms, as if these posts are scholarly essays instead of witty and thoughtful chat, I wonder why he didn't demand that Miller define the analysis he had in mind, to say nothing of the sort of virginity he thinks a 72 yr. old grandpa to possess. As someone once said about writing on the list, if an extended comment were to be prepared as scholarly work, it could easily take a year to complete, with rewrites, fact-checking, source research, vetting , etc., but I think it's far more exciting for Cheerskep to play a game of gotcha even when-- especially when-- he can alter the framework of the comments he attacks and make their author appear dumb. I know it's very imortant to Cheerskep to be the headmaster here but I'm not inclined to accept his rule. Maybe Miller was referring to psychiatric analysis. Maybe he had something else in mind, such as the analysis of art. Who knows? In a few months, a new book by M. Gedo will be published by the Univ. Chicago Press on Monet. One chapter is devoted to a particular painting by Monet in the Chicago Art Institute. I "analyzed" that painting and its varied overpainting by Monet with the art historian Gedo, and the curator of 19C art at the AIC as well as the chief conservator of the AIC. This involved careful "analysis" of x-rays and examination with other state-of-the-art technology. Then I "analyzed" the underpainting and made new images of the painting with the overpainted areas removed, to approximate the original composition. The results of my "analysis" will appear in the form of several illustrations in the book. I have done this sort of analysis many times. Of course the book and my contributions have been vetted widely because it's being produced by the University of Chicago press, one of the top scholarly presses anywhere. But I suppose teaching art history and art seminars for 40 years doesn't count for Miller who hates higher education or for Cheerskep, who has serious doubts about artists who act beyond the studio. Anyway, I have a lot to do. I enjoy reading across the disciplines, writing about art and experience, and also history and genealogy, alongside a very busy studio and career schedule. Happily, the serious judgments about my various abilities and intellectual efforts are not being made by Miller and Cheerskep.
