The funny thing about it is that this is the sort of thing Miller would
love to do. I think the constant referral to other texts without ever really
getting to them is one of the things which feels strange to me. And the
other is the removal from reality- I'm pretty sure that some of the paintings
he cites were actually done by people who knew each other well as a kind of
keepsake, and this doesn't fit into his view of Renaissance portraits so far.
It's mentioned in Shearson who he read. That deal with technologies-not so
good,simplistic and connecting decoration with decorum is farfetched. And
not surprising, a lot of other people have dealt with Rembrandt and portraits,
most of them without taking the time to rehearse the previous four
hundred years and most of them sited firmly in the period. Among other things,
Rembrandt was not alone in dressing up sitters in exotic costumes,it was
quite stylish. I should have known when he mentioned Simon Schama in the
introduction. That guy Kennedy nailed it in that review. I keep thinking it's
all too subtle for me and then I find some other problem. But Miller would
so enjoy being able to do it-all those citations, and notions of exotica.
