(April 14, 2019 at 7:20 am)Thoreauvian Wrote:(April 14, 2019 at 6:05 am)Belaqua Wrote: I think to be consistent, you have to say that he painted some pictures you like and some you don't.
And that when you say "godawful," here, it means no more than that.
Here I think if you're looking to establish your bona fides, it's better not to mention books of reproductions. Books are printed with printer's ink on paper, and the pictures have none of the qualities that oil paintings have. In a serious art history school, any hint that your knowledge of a work comes from reproductions will get you howled out of class. This is part of what Magritte's non-pipe is about, right? The reproduction of the thing is not the thing -- the book picture is an entirely different experience from the painting.
The point of my mentioning my books on Cezanne was to make it clear I was not again Cezanne per se. I now wonder whether, because of hostility toward what I am saying, you are in a position to grasp my points at all.
The Barnes Foundation, which is about 15 miles from my house, has a wonderful collection of Cezanne's paintings, including one of his godawful Large Bathers. The Philadelphia Museum of Art nearby has another godawful Large Bathers.
The whole point of what I am saying is that "art authorities" are too often pretentious and rationalizing. It's not a difficult point to grasp, and I don't care whether they laugh at people like me because I most certainly laugh at them. That's why I dropped out of college as an art major all those years ago.
And yet I love a lot of art regardless of how embarrassing I think such people are.
But by "godawful" you mean "I don't like it."
