On Sep 18, 2008, at 12:14 PM, Chris Miller wrote:
Perhaps if Michael had consulted the "Semantic Web" he just
mentioned, he
would discover that "genre" has a variety of meanings depending on
context.
Even an online dictionary would tell him that "genre" could mean: "A
category
of artistic composition, as in music or literature, marked by a
distinctive
style, form, or content: "his six String Quartets ... the most
important works
in the genre since Beethoven's" Time."
Perhaps if Miller consulted his intelligence ... but of course, I
overestimate him.
Miller asked for an landscape artist. Kate named Richard Estes. Then
Miller said Yikes! He meant " *traditional* genres" [asterisks in the
original]. Then he added "and if we compile a list of the methods and
qualities of Photorealism, how much does it have in common with the
traditions of European landscape painting?"
Landscapes of "urban blight" do not count as landscape, because he
means "European" tradition of, I suppose, pastoral scenes. BTW, I
don't remember that the nexus of Estes' paintings was blight, but
rather some tour-de-force of surface, reflections, light, industrial
shapes, etc. Maybe even some degree of aloofness or anomie. But
blight? Nah.
I named a few artists from memory, and he scurries off to Google and
returns triumphantly: Ha! Name another 999. Oops, I see Kate has
chimed in. 2 for me. Just 998 more to go. What about Brady? Beckman?
Pearlstein? He mentioned the other categories, too.
Miller still approaches art as a commisar of approved style and theme
would.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
