If we were art historians we would be held to different standards - or at least Mando would have to demonstrate where and when Manet demonstrated his ability to resolve a large composition in the conventional manner Mondo proposes for this painting - but given that we are not even aestheticians - but merely a ragged group of undisciplined observers shooting their mouth off - we need not hold one another to any standards that extends beyond respecting each others right to their unsubstantiated subjectivity
On 11/9/09 1:42 AM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: "Or must we just rely on Manet's great reputation, Boris' strong assertion, and Saul's well-earned entitlement, to convince us otherwise?" Reputation of the artist, as a rule, doesn't affect my reaction to the artwork. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: manet Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 02:58:34 GMT So far, everyone has agreed with Saul that "the simple composition of the woman behind the bar unravels into a sequence of interpretations" It's just that Mando thinks the painting stays unraveled -- and so appears to have been "abandoned" as Manet "lost it" Can any detailed argument be made to the contrary? Or must we just rely on Manet's great reputation, Boris' strong assertion, and Saul's well-earned entitlement, to convince us otherwise? BTW -- though I disagree with him, I'm quite glad that Mando is sticking to his guns and is not afraid to stand behind a very un-canonical opinion. And I find his stance much more honorable - and useful -- than any argument by authority. ____________________________________________________________ Weight Loss Program Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c?cp=UtuMwEDqDNJz_m9bGY6rAgAAJz6c l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAAA= --
