It is certainly possible to discuss the visual arts with reference to nothing but the literature that's been written about it..
In which case, you can follow William's lead in identifying those books which are most widely recognized as authoritative, and then consider yourself an expert by remembering their conclusions. (even if you can't remember how they were reached) But as you study that literature, you might notice that they present a variety of opinions that go in and out of fashion, which might prompt you to take a look at the paintings themselves and let them speak to you directly, even if you cannot precisely quote them as you can words of text. And after he leaves the introduction, N.K. will begin to discuss and reproduce specific works and invite the reader to look at them as well. I suppose it also possible to look at a painting and conclude that its thematic content is not coextensive with its formal elements. That certainly is the case with most printed text where the theme has nothing to do with the visuality of type faces and their design on the page. And it might also be said about the kind of low level religious art one is likely to find in a contemporary American church or Sunday school book -- where we know that the themes are supposed to be profound and cosmic, but the art feels bland, cheap, awkward and puny. But N.K. Smith, like most art historians, is discussing a few, very select paintings from a few, very select times and places, and within that tiny subset (i.e. the great masters of Renaissance art), it does seem to me that content and form are inseparable (and often that content is religious) But I can't prove it. All that I (or anyone else) can say is ---- either you see it that way, or you don't. ................................................ >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". > "the religious elements seem to be restricted to thematic content, or at least are not coextensive with its formal elements" ____________________________________________________________ Small Business Tools Click here for to find products that will help grow your small business. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c?cp=yWbm8LrzMlD59dsi_BflQwAAJz6c l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARMQAAAAA=
