Miller's smugness and moment of triumph glows vividly. But darkness returns: As I explained in my rebuttal to DeDuve's rather transparent effort to add credibility to his own view by obfuscating my contribution. In his own proposition, DeDuve makes claims for what Manet actually did, whereas I specifically stated that Manet most likely did not use any perspective method. My approach was merely analytical, similar to the way statistics aim to measure reality). He is of course being clever when he shifts the argument to an aesthetic value. I made no claim that my analysis had anything to do with aesthetics, as such, and in fact readily admit that my analysis invites one to set aside aesthetic or emotional response for the sake of sensing how the painting encompasses a perspectival treatment. If my analysis had no merit, Critical inquiry would or have published my rebuttal nor Ekins' retort to deDuve.
Yes, academic fisticuffs can make Miller's antics seem playgound tame. At least I got into the ring with DeDuve, the heavyweight, and landed my own punches. The meet was a draw. ----- Original Message ---- From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sun, November 1, 2009 6:34:07 AM Subject: Re: Art and Optics De Duve's essay about "The Bar at the Follies Bergere" in Critical Inquiry (Autumn, 1998) is available to anyone with access to a university library. I got a copy yesterday and will discuss it later this month. But for now, I'd just like to share this brief quote with you: "Conger's fragmented multiplication of viewpoints is so much at odds with the powerful artistic synthesis the Bar actually displays that I am afraid it is the perfect example of what not to do with optics when this science is harnessed to the reading of this particular painting. Overinterpretation mistakes overdetermination for proof - a sin in matters aesthetic" A perfect example, indeed. And what is "sin in matters aesthetic" ? How would it differ from sin in matters scientific? I hope De Duve discusses that issue, somewhere, as well. Good luck. Again, this is DeDuve's cheap setup for his own "scientific" proof, a pure conjecture, that claims Manet had a swivel mirror and composed accordingly. If DeDuve had said his analysis was a propositional and an after-the-fact reconstruction of Manet's painting, OK. Then at least we would have been on equal terms. But instead DeDuve falsely claims I was offering a proof of something and I was certainly not doing that. I'm sure that none of this will reduce Miller's zeal to march more triumphal words all over our screens. He is on a mission with a strange companion, DeDuve, whose own "aesthetics" is about as far removed from Miller's reactionist blather as Duchamp's was from Fra Agelico's. wc ____________________________________________________________ Weight Loss Program Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c?cp=eY9zmbXO5KvYrYeozxQgmAAAJz6c l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAAA=
