First the critc does not say that williams observations are incorrect - but that he merely overinterpreted Manets use of multiple vanishing points and in this sought proof of his hypothesis -Seems to me all Duve is asking for is a more measured argument - one that adhere's to the decorum of the field of aesthetics - Now the question is do we believe in Duve's characterization of what is a sin in aesthetics or is he merely pontificatiing - and then the real question is why do you stand by Duve's position in this matter - given it is offered only to strengthen his(and perhaps your own) position - what makes him a authority in either matter (Manet and sin) - if one reads Michael Fried's book on Manet he dismisses Hanson's as a strategy to demonstrate the correctness of his own interpretation - the question of the correctness of Williams diagramming is; is it consistent with the painting ( it might be overly speculative - or overdetermined in that conger wished to prove his point) )and the practice of the artist - not having studied Williams diagram - but knowing his premise - the premise is consistent with not only Manet's practice of fracturing the pictorial space and then re-assembling it so that at first glance it appears pictorially cohesive (in that he had a desire to present all painting as artifice; as a studio construction and therefore only real in the sense of its artificiality and materiality) - which is also consistent with the interest of a number of his fellow artists who sought to dismantle perspective as the sole structural principle for pictorial space and optics-
On 11/1/09 7:34 AM, "Chris Miller" <[email protected]> wrote: De Duve's essay about "The Bar at the Follies Bergere" in Critical Inquiry (Autumn, 1998) is available to anyone with access to a university library. I got a copy yesterday and will discuss it later this month. But for now, I'd just like to share this brief quote with you: "Conger's fragmented multiplication of viewpoints is so much at odds with the powerful artistic synthesis the Bar actually displays that I am afraid it is the perfect example of what not to do with optics when this science is harnessed to the reading of this particular painting. Overinterpretation mistakes overdetermination for proof - a sin in matters aesthetic" A perfect example, indeed. And what is "sin in matters aesthetic" ? How would it differ from sin in matters scientific? I hope De Duve discusses that issue, somewhere, as well. ____________________________________________________________ Weight Loss Program Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c?cp=eY9zmbXO5KvYrYeozxQgmAAAJz6c l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAAA= --
