That's a funny story about Yuri Gagarin, but it's irrelevant to that portrait's believability as far as I'm concerned, and I have no idea whether it's a good likeness or not.
That sculpture is only believable because it feels that way -- as it seems to tell an important story about a real person in a real time and place. What might makes it feel so real and important? (and these two notions are inter-dependant) Can the extent of that effect be explained by describing "actual shapes and form and cultural patterns, cues, etc" ? Not if we acknowledge that believability and importance are qualities of a whole that is more than the sum of its parts. Every spot of texture makes it feel that way, yet by itself, every spot is meaningless. (which is exactly the lesson that expert forgers like Hebborn continuously teach as they imitate that which they can - the parts - instead of that which they can't - the whole) This is not to disparage the role of scholarship, concerning which William is so sensitive. It's only to say that scholarship answers different kinds of questions. For example, in a hundred years or so, all that stuff that Boris knows about Yuri Gagarin's plane crash will only be known by scholars, and then we must rely on them to to present that portrait as a window into the world of Soviet Russia. Kerbel's portrait presents a man-boy who would not seem adverse to being locked up in a big tin can, set on top of a ton of explosives, and then fired into outer space. In contrast, if that fellow in the Roman portrait had been involved in a rocket launch , he would have been the one lighting the fuse, with probably no concern for the cosmonaut's safe landing. Those pater familias from the Roman Republic had to be real tough guys. They all had serve in the military, which meant standing and fighting, not shuffling papers, and would eventually have the power of life and death over an extended family and small army of slaves and retainers. Very different men -- very different societies -- and the scholar can help us understand those different worlds (as they can with any artifact) But the actual understanding comes from a one-on-one relationship between the viewer and the piece - and the extent to which portrait (or any expression) feels believable and important is based on a personal experience that can be called aesthetic. Apparently, William feels that this notion of aesthetic personally "insults" him "through your unending hatred of anything representing serious knowledge, scholarship, intellectuality" But William, good artist that he is, is hardly a serious representative of the world of scholarship. He has not achieved an advanced degrees in any scholarly field nor published any books in them. So far, his academic claim to fame are the few paragraphs that Thierry de Duve wrote using him as an example of "overinterpretation" The only place where William can present himself as any kind of authority is here, on this listserv, surrounded by half-educated, sometimes functionally illiterate, obscure artists, with an occasional graduate student passing through. Which is, I presume, why he sticks around and is willing to endure the terrible abuse of which he complains. As Mando has noted (and William agreed) , William likes play "king of a very shaky hill" -- but it's not even a hill. It's more like a flower bed. ************************************************************** >I know Gagarin's face very well. The best part of this portrait, beside good likeness, is a scar on his forehead, as rumors say, is a result of a drunken pleasure flying of a military plain. (Boris) ____________________________________________________________ Criminal Lawyer Criminal Lawyers - Click here. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c?cp=mq1a6-T7hh8v0rosMCmLRwAAJz6c l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAiFgAAAAA=
