"Tom Watson" wrote in message

Sorry Charlie (did I just say that out loud?) but this conflicts with
my own theory on Impressionism, particularly in the regard of those
such as Degas, Cezanne, Renoir, Matisse, Monet, et al, who suffered,
in my firm opinion from poor eyesight, and thought that they were
doing Realism, thus inventing an entire school of visual artwork,
based entirely on the inability to see clearly.

As proof, I offer you the thought that, were I a painter, which I am
not, and were I to paint without having my glasses on, which I would
not, even if I could, I would paint a faithful representation of the
world as I perceived it; unclear, diaphanous, distorted, pastel, and
preposterous.

I am surprised that the art critics have not taken my point.


Well spoken Tom (as usual). What you have not taken into account is the fact
that the art critics (like all of us) can become blinded to anything that
comes from outside their specific profession. Well, maybe not blinded so
much as myopic ... which brings us back to your point (errr pointy stick??).

All too often, here on the wreck, we find opinions challenged almost to the
point of drawing blood. Happily, some reason prevails, and educated
explainations show a workable alternative to the blood, gore, and mayhem
often suggested. Glad you provide a great deal of that positive commentary.

Now ... where did I put my glasses?


Rick



It is not necessary to understand things in order to argue about them --
Beaumarchais