In Reply to: Re: Cubism nt. posted by Victor Khomenko on April 15, 2002 at 17:57:23:
>>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-......<<Fine, if you have done a lot of intellectual[!] analysis, you may arrive at the above conclusion about, say, Picasso. This in turn negates that artists who followed the idea, the style and the philosophy, and in turn influenced other artists, who then are themselves "pseudo-intellectual"[I still want to know what he meant by that] and "hacks".
By itself this isn't anything earth-shattering or big deal and has been done all-throughout history of the arts, but I'd think labeling someone of Picasso's clout an "over-rated hack" requires a bit of lengthy and solid basis, not a series of snippy one line repartes. All I wanted was an explanation.>>Picasso most certainly was NOW a hack.<<
Sorry, V, I didn't get that.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- 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)