Re: More Etymology!

On Feb 20, 2:35 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I gather you're not aware that the Impressionists and those who came
after generally _had_ mastered the academic style, as students, and
their early training underlay all their later experiments and
achievements.

You can say that in retrospect. And I must say I was considered
quite a prodigy in my school days, I could easily have gone for
a career, but the prescribed ways were too boring for me.

The Guggenheim's Jackson Pollock retrospective a few years ago begain
with a small room containing some student drawings, showing his
draftsmanship and naturalism were as capable as those of any of his
contemporaries who went in a different direction (such as Andrew Wyeth
or, heaven help us, Thomas Kknkade).

Paul Cézanne was probably the most influential pioneer of modern
art, and his early paintings look quite funny.

Though what that has to do with your inability to grasp the concept of
arguing for your position, I cannot fathom.

Let me rather speak of your inability of grasping my arguments:
you filter out everything that goes beyond your fence (the fences
of your mind and education). You can't recognize my arguments,
as the jury of the 'Salon de Paris' was not able to recognize
the Impressionistic paintings for what they are. The academic
painters worked in studios, the Impressionists in the open air.
You studied linguistics, I studied and study language. You can
only evaluate what is delivered in terms of your terminology,
while I got a feeling for language. As I like to say about students
of art history: they join university seeing, and leave it blind - they
learned everything about classifying pictures, but are no longer
able to _see_ them.




.