With all due respect, you are entitled to your view, and so am I.
mando
On Nov 4, 2009, at 10:33 AM, William Conger wrote:
I find it hilarious that you or anyone could so easily dismiss
anything by Manet, let alone one of his most admired and
universally recognized masterworks. When, and if, that genius
stumbled or "lost it" he was still well above all but a few of the
best artists in history. In my view, it's you who has lost it in
looking at Manet, and have transferred that fault to Manet.
wc
----- Original Message ----
From: armando baeza <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]>
Sent: Wed, November 4, 2009 12:25:33 PM
Subject: Re: manet
Can happen to any human, even us.
mando
On Nov 4, 2009, at 10:12 AM, William Conger wrote:
This is truly funny. "Manet lost it on this design."
wc
----- Original Message ----
From: armando baeza <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]>
Sent: Tue, November 3, 2009 8:51:08 PM
Subject: Re: manet
Sorry Chris.
Manet, as great as he was. lost it on this design. I think he was not
satisfied with this one, yet i love the overall feeling.
mando
On Nov 3, 2009, at 9:05 AM, Chris Miller wrote:
Sorry, but this line of thought is above my intellectual
capacity of
comprehension. (Boris Shoshensky)
That was it's intention.
But it's only only a commonplace to note that " when certain cues
are present
in a image they (i.e. all viewers) fill
in the missing information"
While Saul's response does not address the recognition of a
"central
organizing effect" --- which some viewers (like you, I, and
Duve) find in
'The Bar at the Folies Bergere" , others (like Mando) apparently
do not, and
still others (like Saul and William) may find, but consider that
issue to be
highly subjective, and just one discourse among many that may be
conducted
concerning any painting.
---------- Original Message ----------
...............................
Sorry, but this line of thought is above my intellectual capacity of
comprehension.
Boris Shoshensky
From: Saul Ostrow <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Cc: William Conger <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: manet
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:56:13 -0500
Someone's expectation that when certain cues are present in a
image they fill
in the missing information - consequently we see in the case of
Manet's
painting perspective where there is single organizing principle -
that as
Mando suggests the painting was painted at different times with some
disregard
for what came before - similar to what he had done in Luncheon on
the Grass
On 11/3/09 10:40 AM, "Boris Shoshensky"
<[email protected]> wrote:
What lies and in which habits?
Boris Shoshensky
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Saul Ostrow <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Cc: William Conger <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: manet
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 14:17:04 -0500
And does this lie in the habits of the viewer in the case of Manet
On 11/2/09 1:16 PM, "Boris Shoshensky"
<[email protected]> wrote:
"Actually I thought what I had sent along supported Williams
observation - by
demonstrating the fact that the space of the painting has no central
organizing principle and that each section or sector has its own
logic"
That each section or sector has its own logic doesn't prevent
composition to
have 'bridges' that create central organizing effect, without
which painting
would fall apart.
Boris Shoshensky
____________________________________________________________
Diet Help
Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c?
cp=DyukY8C53vLkKj5f6OczmAAAJz6c
l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYQAAA
AAA=
