I realise that but they and their target (wide as possible) audience seam comfortably bedded in a mythic status quo of what determines artistic tallent and yes, their attempt to reevaluate what made late 19th c. avant-garde work important is fruitless.
- bill 11-27-2001 11:04 pm

Personally, I'm all for the artist-as-heroic-genius, I'd just rather it wasn't based on simple rendering skills. That's where the wider audience could use some "edumacation."
- tom moody 11-27-2001 11:58 pm [add a comment]

  • Evidently Hockney's target audience (buying into the myth of rendering-skills-as-genius), includes Susan Sontag. From Today's Papers, on Slate: "The LAT fronts artist David Hockney's contention that many of the Old Masters—Rembrandt, Vermeer, etc.—used a 'camera lucida' to project images of their subjects onto canvas, thus allowing the artists to trace their paintings. Hockney, whose theory was the basis of a symposium this past weekend, insists that though some artists used an extra tool, it doesn't diminish their achievements. But Susan Sontag doesn't buy that, 'If David Hockney's thesis is correct, it would be a bit like finding out that all the great lovers of history have been using Viagra.'" I can't believe the person who wrote "Notes on Camp" and "On Photography" said that.

    - tom moody 12-03-2001 7:24 pm [add a comment]

    • And since when did Viagra make anyone a good lover?
      - steve 12-04-2001 4:54 am [add a comment]

      • Yeah like ol' Bill Traylor using his cardboard straightedge to draw dogs upside down.
        - frank 12-20-2001 7:39 am [add a comment]

add a comment to this page:

Your post will be captioned "posted by anonymous,"
or you may enter a guest username below:

Line breaks work. HTML tags will be stripped.