I have seen Durer, English of 19Th c., Rodin, Sargent, Homer, Marin, Cezanne. I don't need experts to appreciate all of them in different ways. I believe in objective criterias of beauty in art and thought. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: the boring false opposition between money and art Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 13:08:26 -0800 (PST)
What watercolors had you seen before seeing Nolde's? But then you are one of the experts anyway. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: Boris Shoshensky <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, December 15, 2010 1:43:35 PM Subject: Re: the boring false opposition between money and art Holistic approach to art and art history. Nobody taught me to love Nolde's watercolors. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: the boring false opposition between money and art Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:55:57 -0800 (PST) He wasn't lucky. A few recognized his genius and had the power to spread his fame through word (see Vasari) and deeds (see papal patronage). His universal fame came after that, not always so quickly (the first reception of his David was negative among crowds). It's the same process as now: excellence accorded by the few, later, maybe, by the many who mostly learned from or imitated the few. I don't know of a case (in Western art history) in which it was other way around. Maybe you do. wc Then how came Michelangelo is so lucky? Boris Shoshensky
