I find it hilarious that you or anyone could so easily dismiss anything by Manet, let alone one of his most admired and universally recognized masterworks. When, and if, that genius stumbled or "lost it" he was still well above all but a few of the best artists in history. In my view, it's you who has lost it in looking at Manet, and have transferred that fault to Manet. wc
----- Original Message ---- From: armando baeza <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, November 4, 2009 12:25:33 PM Subject: Re: manet Can happen to any human, even us. mando On Nov 4, 2009, at 10:12 AM, William Conger wrote: > This is truly funny. "Manet lost it on this design." > wc > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: armando baeza <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> > Sent: Tue, November 3, 2009 8:51:08 PM > Subject: Re: manet > > Sorry Chris. > Manet, as great as he was. lost it on this design. I think he was not > satisfied with this one, yet i love the overall feeling. > mando > > On Nov 3, 2009, at 9:05 AM, Chris Miller wrote: > >>> Sorry, but this line of thought is above my intellectual capacity of >> comprehension. (Boris Shoshensky) >> >> That was it's intention. >> >> >> But it's only only a commonplace to note that " when certain cues are present >> in a image they (i.e. all viewers) fill >> in the missing information" >> >> While Saul's response does not address the recognition of a "central >> organizing effect" --- which some viewers (like you, I, and Duve) find in >> 'The Bar at the Folies Bergere" , others (like Mando) apparently do not, and >> still others (like Saul and William) may find, but consider that issue to be >> highly subjective, and just one discourse among many that may be conducted >> concerning any painting. >> >> >> >> >> ---------- Original Message ---------- >> >> ............................... >> >> >> Sorry, but this line of thought is above my intellectual capacity of >> comprehension. >> Boris Shoshensky >> >> >> From: Saul Ostrow <[email protected]> >> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, >> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Cc: William Conger <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: manet >> Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:56:13 -0500 >> >> Someone's expectation that when certain cues are present in a image they fill >> in the missing information - consequently we see in the case of Manet's >> painting perspective where there is single organizing principle - that as >> Mando suggests the painting was painted at different times with some >> disregard >> for what came before - similar to what he had done in Luncheon on the Grass >> >> >> On 11/3/09 10:40 AM, "Boris Shoshensky" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> What lies and in which habits? >> Boris Shoshensky >> >> ---------- Original Message ---------- >> From: Saul Ostrow <[email protected]> >> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, >> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Cc: William Conger <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: manet >> Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 14:17:04 -0500 >> >> And does this lie in the habits of the viewer in the case of Manet >> >> >> On 11/2/09 1:16 PM, "Boris Shoshensky" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> "Actually I thought what I had sent along supported Williams observation - by >> demonstrating the fact that the space of the painting has no central >> organizing principle and that each section or sector has its own logic" >> >> That each section or sector has its own logic doesn't prevent composition to >> have 'bridges' that create central organizing effect, without which painting >> would fall apart. >> Boris Shoshensky >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> Diet Help >> Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here. >> http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c?cp=DyukY8C53vLkKj5f6OczmAAAJz6c >> l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYQAAAAAA=
