In Reply to: Re: Cubism nt. posted by Dmitry on April 15, 2002 at 17:50:40:
That is a hard one. We have two things to go by. One is the accepted norms. They say Bergman (Picasso) is NOT pseudo-anything, but rather the titan.Another approach is the nihilistic self-reliance. *I* and only I define what is intellectual, and if I, for whatever reason do not accept this form, it must be pseudo-......
Interesting here to note, that while the first one hardly ever changes (after all, it was some VERY smart people who already went that way for us) the second one is forever moving... as we grow.
I didn't see him say "overrated hack" - if he did, that would be trying to cross the line separating the first approach from the second one. Picasso most certainly was NOW a hack.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Cubism nt. - Victor Khomenko 17:57:23 04/15/02 (4)
- Re: Cubism nt. - Dmitry 18:14:26 04/15/02 (3)
- Re: Cubism nt. - highendman 15:50:30 04/16/02 (1)
- Re: Cubism nt. - Dave-A 21:09:58 04/16/02 (0)
- A typo - Victor Khomenko 18:28:30 04/15/02 (0)