Well said, CHEERSKEP, ab On Dec 3, 2013, at 11:15 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> In a message dated 12/3/13 12:49:00 PM, [email protected] writes: > > >> Devise,if you will, an acceptable wording. >> > What I'm flailing at is the usage "THE" history of. . . > > Vasari's very cherishable work was a selection of stories and remarks about > a number of artists. But it was "A" history, not "THE". I certainly don't > deny that dominant artists have had tremendous influence on others who > followed them, and the descriptions of their works-of-influence, and how and why > they molded reactions and consequent efforts, can be compelling stuff. > > But in all genres -- not just visual arts -- I'm moved by the thought that > many artists have worked in isolation, in obscurity, while producing works > that would have affected countless other artists and contemplators if only > those loners were known. Luckily, Dickinson's poetry, though written in > relative obscurity, survived because of the persistence of people around her. It's > hard to believe that there were no solitary poets of worthiness whose works > never saw the light of printed day, whose manuscripts were long ago trashed > by obtuse descendants cleaning out the attic. > > Put it another way. We should draw a distinction between a "history" and > what it purports to be a history OF. A "history" of KNOWN works is different > from a record of ALL works we might call "art" if we'd only known about > them. There can be no book, no commentary, that I personally would be > comfortable calling THE history of any genre.
