In a message dated 12/3/13 12:49:00 PM, [email protected] writes:
> Devise,if you will, an acceptable wording. > What I'm flailing at is the usage "THE" history of. . . Vasari's very cherishable work was a selection of stories and remarks about a number of artists. But it was "A" history, not "THE". I certainly don't deny that dominant artists have had tremendous influence on others who followed them, and the descriptions of their works-of-influence, and how and why they molded reactions and consequent efforts, can be compelling stuff. But in all genres -- not just visual arts -- I'm moved by the thought that many artists have worked in isolation, in obscurity, while producing works that would have affected countless other artists and contemplators if only those loners were known. Luckily, Dickinson's poetry, though written in relative obscurity, survived because of the persistence of people around her. It's hard to believe that there were no solitary poets of worthiness whose works never saw the light of printed day, whose manuscripts were long ago trashed by obtuse descendants cleaning out the attic. Put it another way. We should draw a distinction between a "history" and what it purports to be a history OF. A "history" of KNOWN works is different from a record of ALL works we might call "art" if we'd only known about them. There can be no book, no commentary, that I personally would be comfortable calling THE history of any genre.
