I do not understand this last email Mr Miller. I do not think I am rejecting Smith. As I have said, I am not reading his book, and so cannot really evaluate his work. I did say, and I do say, that Smith's rejection of Panofsky (or at least the presentation of this rejection here) utterly misses the thrust of Panofsky's work. And such a misunderstanding is disconcerting: a fundamental misunderstanding of one the best known theorists implies a deeper set of problems, in much the same way as translating Kunstwissenschaft as art sciences strikes me as foisting an improper meaning upon the term for ideological reasons.
In any case, you seem to be withdrawing again to the solitude of an inherently personal and rhapsodic experience that claims its own authority independently of any book or theory. This is fine, to be sure, but it forecloses any real philosophical or aesthetic discussion. It allows only for a Wittgensteinian language-play of pointint to works and saying, "Like" or "Don't like". On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Chris Miller <[email protected]>wrote: > William and MR. Asthetik are dismissing N.K.Smith's thesis with what > amounts > to nothing more than "that's not what I was told". > > But as David Rosand wrote in the foreward: > > "Here I stand" is an original and important book. It is the kind of book > one > wants to see in art history: passionately partisan, cricially interpretive, > focused and precise in its analysis and large in scope and in the > implications > of its thesis" > > Remember David Rosand ? > > He was one of the experts quoted by Berger and according to Wikipedia is > "one > of the foremost scholars of Italian Renaissance art active today.... Since > 1964, Rosand has taught at Columbia, where he was Meyer Schapiro Professor > of > Art History" > > How can William possibly know that "A lot of Ren. artists could care less > about the religious subject matter they were hired to portray. What they > competed with one another for was the best idealized portrayal of the > figure > in action, in space." > > That sounds a lot like a modern, secular artist projecting his attitudes > back > into the past - coinciding with what K.B. McFarlane (as quoted by Smith) > called "the Agnostic Ascendancy". > > Smith further quotes the Jesuit scholar, Walter J. Ong, regarding what > "discourse and communication was like...for every educated man in the > Renaissance": > > "In accord with the rhetorical outlook, students were almost never taught > objective description or reportorial narration: the object of education > was > to them to take a stand, as an orator might, and defend it, or to attack > the > stand of another... the whole purpose of speaking or writing about anyone , > as > one can see in so standard a manual as Aphthonius's Progymnasmata, was to > praise or blame him. Even in treating with inanimate objects, training in > cool, objective, uncommitted description is by and large not a part of > formal > education in the arts of language at least through the 17th C. > Consequently > it is very difficult to find a real connection between any pedagogical > system, > based as these were upon training in the language arts, and an experimental > frame of mind. The pedagogy of the time bore hard on personal relations" > > > And lacking testimonials from all but a few artists of that period (few of > whom, BTW, were institutionally qualfied to discuss theology, which at time > was a life and death issue) -- all we can do is look at the paintings and > judge for ourselves whether "the religious elements seem to be restricted > to > thematic content, or at least are not coextensive" > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Small Business Tools > Reduce your business expense. Click here to find products for your small > business. > > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c?cp=w1otmXfXbeNgeWcRPN8VCQAAJz6c > l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARMQAAAAA=
