Leonardo

Critique of Modern ArtAuthor(s): Frederick SolomonSource: Leonardo, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Winter, 1975), pp. 94-95Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1573230 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 14:44

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The MIT Press and Leonardo are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toLeonardo.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.82 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:44:40 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

We have just published a new book called Introduction to Environmental Psychology. Perhaps this would help Friedman to understand more of the field than our previous book.

Harold M. Proshansky City University of New York

33 West 42 Street New York, NY 10036, U.S.A.

I think H. M. Proshansky is in a way right in his letter. It is true that the intentions of the authors were meritorious and he tried to point them out in his Introduction. The point of my review was not motivated by suspicions of intentions. I was trying to take a reader's point of view and I think this is what a reviewer is supposed to do.

The error of the authors is a lack of concern for their readers. If (as Proshansky points out) the intention was not 'to introduce the professional or lay reader to a "super science" ', then why reprint papers that professionals could have been expected to have read? Why not present un- published papers ? Perhaps they had neither the funds nor the time to do so.

What I find disappointing in Proshansky's letter is the professional's hauty attitude towards the layman. He does not try to defend the book but prefers to express contempt for the reviewer (' . . . perhaps this would help Friedman to understand more of the field .... '). This means that I did not understand his book (which might be the case) but it does not occur to him that the authors treated a subject in an unsatisfactory manner. I believe that a less self-centred attitude on the part of the authors would have been advantageous to the readers of their book. I hope their new book is better!

Yona Friedman 42 Bd. Pasteur

75015-Paris, France

'Varieties of Visual Experience: Art as Image and Idea'

I was pleased by the generally favorable comments on my book made by Arnold Berleant [Leonardo 7, 272 (1974)]. He was especially kind in recognizing the problems that attend the discussion of the visual arts from the standpoints of psychology and aesthetics as well as of history and technique. However, I have some difficulty in under- standing his objection to my definition of style as 'a group- ing or classification of works of art... which makes further study and analysis possible'. He feels that this definition is too general and that it leads to unsatisfactory stylistic classifications; namely, objective accuracy, formal order, emotion and fantasy. These classifications, he believes, will confuse the beginning student. One cannot, of course, say with certainty what will confuse beginning students. But I had hoped in the development of these categories to offer an alternative system for organizing the frequently bewildering array of art historical styles and periods that are based on nationalistic, chronological, geographical, ethnic, religious, thematic, technical and political modes of classification. A further reading of the section in question will show that I pay my respects to several other conceptions of style: its personal or collective character, its relation to the artistic outlook on the world, its role as a mirror of social change, its relation to pervasive modes of seeing, etc.

By his reference to style as 'an important scholarly concept', I trust he does not fault me for failing to refer to some sort of Platonic entity that represents the 'real' object of inquiry as one goes about the task of examining particular works of art. For the student, I believe it is more important to regard style as a convenient, value-

We have just published a new book called Introduction to Environmental Psychology. Perhaps this would help Friedman to understand more of the field than our previous book.

Harold M. Proshansky City University of New York

33 West 42 Street New York, NY 10036, U.S.A.

I think H. M. Proshansky is in a way right in his letter. It is true that the intentions of the authors were meritorious and he tried to point them out in his Introduction. The point of my review was not motivated by suspicions of intentions. I was trying to take a reader's point of view and I think this is what a reviewer is supposed to do.

The error of the authors is a lack of concern for their readers. If (as Proshansky points out) the intention was not 'to introduce the professional or lay reader to a "super science" ', then why reprint papers that professionals could have been expected to have read? Why not present un- published papers ? Perhaps they had neither the funds nor the time to do so.

What I find disappointing in Proshansky's letter is the professional's hauty attitude towards the layman. He does not try to defend the book but prefers to express contempt for the reviewer (' . . . perhaps this would help Friedman to understand more of the field .... '). This means that I did not understand his book (which might be the case) but it does not occur to him that the authors treated a subject in an unsatisfactory manner. I believe that a less self-centred attitude on the part of the authors would have been advantageous to the readers of their book. I hope their new book is better!

Yona Friedman 42 Bd. Pasteur

75015-Paris, France

'Varieties of Visual Experience: Art as Image and Idea'

I was pleased by the generally favorable comments on my book made by Arnold Berleant [Leonardo 7, 272 (1974)]. He was especially kind in recognizing the problems that attend the discussion of the visual arts from the standpoints of psychology and aesthetics as well as of history and technique. However, I have some difficulty in under- standing his objection to my definition of style as 'a group- ing or classification of works of art... which makes further study and analysis possible'. He feels that this definition is too general and that it leads to unsatisfactory stylistic classifications; namely, objective accuracy, formal order, emotion and fantasy. These classifications, he believes, will confuse the beginning student. One cannot, of course, say with certainty what will confuse beginning students. But I had hoped in the development of these categories to offer an alternative system for organizing the frequently bewildering array of art historical styles and periods that are based on nationalistic, chronological, geographical, ethnic, religious, thematic, technical and political modes of classification. A further reading of the section in question will show that I pay my respects to several other conceptions of style: its personal or collective character, its relation to the artistic outlook on the world, its role as a mirror of social change, its relation to pervasive modes of seeing, etc.

By his reference to style as 'an important scholarly concept', I trust he does not fault me for failing to refer to some sort of Platonic entity that represents the 'real' object of inquiry as one goes about the task of examining particular works of art. For the student, I believe it is more important to regard style as a convenient, value-

We have just published a new book called Introduction to Environmental Psychology. Perhaps this would help Friedman to understand more of the field than our previous book.

Harold M. Proshansky City University of New York

33 West 42 Street New York, NY 10036, U.S.A.

I think H. M. Proshansky is in a way right in his letter. It is true that the intentions of the authors were meritorious and he tried to point them out in his Introduction. The point of my review was not motivated by suspicions of intentions. I was trying to take a reader's point of view and I think this is what a reviewer is supposed to do.

The error of the authors is a lack of concern for their readers. If (as Proshansky points out) the intention was not 'to introduce the professional or lay reader to a "super science" ', then why reprint papers that professionals could have been expected to have read? Why not present un- published papers ? Perhaps they had neither the funds nor the time to do so.

What I find disappointing in Proshansky's letter is the professional's hauty attitude towards the layman. He does not try to defend the book but prefers to express contempt for the reviewer (' . . . perhaps this would help Friedman to understand more of the field .... '). This means that I did not understand his book (which might be the case) but it does not occur to him that the authors treated a subject in an unsatisfactory manner. I believe that a less self-centred attitude on the part of the authors would have been advantageous to the readers of their book. I hope their new book is better!

Yona Friedman 42 Bd. Pasteur

75015-Paris, France

'Varieties of Visual Experience: Art as Image and Idea'

I was pleased by the generally favorable comments on my book made by Arnold Berleant [Leonardo 7, 272 (1974)]. He was especially kind in recognizing the problems that attend the discussion of the visual arts from the standpoints of psychology and aesthetics as well as of history and technique. However, I have some difficulty in under- standing his objection to my definition of style as 'a group- ing or classification of works of art... which makes further study and analysis possible'. He feels that this definition is too general and that it leads to unsatisfactory stylistic classifications; namely, objective accuracy, formal order, emotion and fantasy. These classifications, he believes, will confuse the beginning student. One cannot, of course, say with certainty what will confuse beginning students. But I had hoped in the development of these categories to offer an alternative system for organizing the frequently bewildering array of art historical styles and periods that are based on nationalistic, chronological, geographical, ethnic, religious, thematic, technical and political modes of classification. A further reading of the section in question will show that I pay my respects to several other conceptions of style: its personal or collective character, its relation to the artistic outlook on the world, its role as a mirror of social change, its relation to pervasive modes of seeing, etc.

By his reference to style as 'an important scholarly concept', I trust he does not fault me for failing to refer to some sort of Platonic entity that represents the 'real' object of inquiry as one goes about the task of examining particular works of art. For the student, I believe it is more important to regard style as a convenient, value- neutral designation not unlike the genera of the biological sciences. In any event, I do not think of accuracy, formal order, emotion and fantasy as 'elements' of style. They are visual and psychological traits that seem to recur when

neutral designation not unlike the genera of the biological sciences. In any event, I do not think of accuracy, formal order, emotion and fantasy as 'elements' of style. They are visual and psychological traits that seem to recur when

neutral designation not unlike the genera of the biological sciences. In any event, I do not think of accuracy, formal order, emotion and fantasy as 'elements' of style. They are visual and psychological traits that seem to recur when

experiencing art with sufficient frequency to deserve the label of style or, at least, recognition as categories of analysis. I believe they possess a certain pedagogical usefulness and possibly some scientific value also.

Edmund B. Feldman Dept. of Art

University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602, U.S.A.

The author of a general work foregoes the authority that accompanies the careful justification of conceptual decisions and of data. This is certainly the case with popular works. The intellectual danger inherent in such writing lies in ignoring or neatly disposing of alternatives and objections and otherwise taking upon oneself the right of divine disposition.

E. B. Feldman in his book does a fine job covering an enormous range of art objects and ideas. My comment on his treatment of style [Leonardo 7, 272 (1974)] was intended as an illustration of the kind of difficulty that dogs the heels of every generalist. I am willing to grant the pedagogical efficacy of a particular classification of style; whether it is or is not effective can be borne out in practice, not established in argument. What I fear is that a host of neat classifications may be too pedagogically effective, loading students' minds with convenient cate- gories for neatly filing away every art object in its proper niche.

Feldman's approach, centering as it does on how an art object functions in our experience of it, might be expected to have been perhaps a bit more responsive to the need to confine categorization to its heuristic and pedagogical purposes and to continually make clear that these classifications are, as Aristotle expressed the point, distinctions and not separations. I am impressed with how often our categories of analysis do not quite fit the facts. For instance, John Kane's 'Self-Portrait' (p. 187), classed as an example of the style of objective accuracy, could just as easily be subsumed under the style of formal order, and even under the style of emotion. Similarly, in Part One, 'The Functions of Art', the division into per- sonal, social and physical functions has a usefulness that belies the fact that the sorts of personal functions dis- cussed, such as death, love, sex and spiritual concerns are themselves social in meaning and practice, just as the physical functions as found in architecture, design and crafts both reflect and influence personal and social functions.

All this is intended as a qualifying comment and not as a total judgment of the book. For its strengths lie in developing a humanistic social view of the experience and function of art, a laudable goal that this book succeeds in approaching.

Arnold Berleant Dept. of Philosophy C. W. Post College

Greenvale, NY 11548, U.S.A.

'Critique of Modern Art'

The reviewer of my book [Leonardo 7, 275 (1974)] has not understood the first thing about it. He reminds me of Balaam in the Old Testament who sets out to curse Israel but comes forward with a blessing. Half of his review consists of quotations from my book, which I consider an appreciation, because they are well chosen.

But he fails to describe the contents of the book: (1) the origin of the various schools of modern art (deliberately limited to the decades between 1910 and 1960); (2) the

experiencing art with sufficient frequency to deserve the label of style or, at least, recognition as categories of analysis. I believe they possess a certain pedagogical usefulness and possibly some scientific value also.

Edmund B. Feldman Dept. of Art

University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602, U.S.A.

The author of a general work foregoes the authority that accompanies the careful justification of conceptual decisions and of data. This is certainly the case with popular works. The intellectual danger inherent in such writing lies in ignoring or neatly disposing of alternatives and objections and otherwise taking upon oneself the right of divine disposition.

E. B. Feldman in his book does a fine job covering an enormous range of art objects and ideas. My comment on his treatment of style [Leonardo 7, 272 (1974)] was intended as an illustration of the kind of difficulty that dogs the heels of every generalist. I am willing to grant the pedagogical efficacy of a particular classification of style; whether it is or is not effective can be borne out in practice, not established in argument. What I fear is that a host of neat classifications may be too pedagogically effective, loading students' minds with convenient cate- gories for neatly filing away every art object in its proper niche.

Feldman's approach, centering as it does on how an art object functions in our experience of it, might be expected to have been perhaps a bit more responsive to the need to confine categorization to its heuristic and pedagogical purposes and to continually make clear that these classifications are, as Aristotle expressed the point, distinctions and not separations. I am impressed with how often our categories of analysis do not quite fit the facts. For instance, John Kane's 'Self-Portrait' (p. 187), classed as an example of the style of objective accuracy, could just as easily be subsumed under the style of formal order, and even under the style of emotion. Similarly, in Part One, 'The Functions of Art', the division into per- sonal, social and physical functions has a usefulness that belies the fact that the sorts of personal functions dis- cussed, such as death, love, sex and spiritual concerns are themselves social in meaning and practice, just as the physical functions as found in architecture, design and crafts both reflect and influence personal and social functions.

All this is intended as a qualifying comment and not as a total judgment of the book. For its strengths lie in developing a humanistic social view of the experience and function of art, a laudable goal that this book succeeds in approaching.

Arnold Berleant Dept. of Philosophy C. W. Post College

Greenvale, NY 11548, U.S.A.

'Critique of Modern Art'

The reviewer of my book [Leonardo 7, 275 (1974)] has not understood the first thing about it. He reminds me of Balaam in the Old Testament who sets out to curse Israel but comes forward with a blessing. Half of his review consists of quotations from my book, which I consider an appreciation, because they are well chosen.

But he fails to describe the contents of the book: (1) the origin of the various schools of modern art (deliberately limited to the decades between 1910 and 1960); (2) the

experiencing art with sufficient frequency to deserve the label of style or, at least, recognition as categories of analysis. I believe they possess a certain pedagogical usefulness and possibly some scientific value also.

Edmund B. Feldman Dept. of Art

University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602, U.S.A.

The author of a general work foregoes the authority that accompanies the careful justification of conceptual decisions and of data. This is certainly the case with popular works. The intellectual danger inherent in such writing lies in ignoring or neatly disposing of alternatives and objections and otherwise taking upon oneself the right of divine disposition.

E. B. Feldman in his book does a fine job covering an enormous range of art objects and ideas. My comment on his treatment of style [Leonardo 7, 272 (1974)] was intended as an illustration of the kind of difficulty that dogs the heels of every generalist. I am willing to grant the pedagogical efficacy of a particular classification of style; whether it is or is not effective can be borne out in practice, not established in argument. What I fear is that a host of neat classifications may be too pedagogically effective, loading students' minds with convenient cate- gories for neatly filing away every art object in its proper niche.

Feldman's approach, centering as it does on how an art object functions in our experience of it, might be expected to have been perhaps a bit more responsive to the need to confine categorization to its heuristic and pedagogical purposes and to continually make clear that these classifications are, as Aristotle expressed the point, distinctions and not separations. I am impressed with how often our categories of analysis do not quite fit the facts. For instance, John Kane's 'Self-Portrait' (p. 187), classed as an example of the style of objective accuracy, could just as easily be subsumed under the style of formal order, and even under the style of emotion. Similarly, in Part One, 'The Functions of Art', the division into per- sonal, social and physical functions has a usefulness that belies the fact that the sorts of personal functions dis- cussed, such as death, love, sex and spiritual concerns are themselves social in meaning and practice, just as the physical functions as found in architecture, design and crafts both reflect and influence personal and social functions.

All this is intended as a qualifying comment and not as a total judgment of the book. For its strengths lie in developing a humanistic social view of the experience and function of art, a laudable goal that this book succeeds in approaching.

Arnold Berleant Dept. of Philosophy C. W. Post College

Greenvale, NY 11548, U.S.A.

'Critique of Modern Art'

The reviewer of my book [Leonardo 7, 275 (1974)] has not understood the first thing about it. He reminds me of Balaam in the Old Testament who sets out to curse Israel but comes forward with a blessing. Half of his review consists of quotations from my book, which I consider an appreciation, because they are well chosen.

But he fails to describe the contents of the book: (1) the origin of the various schools of modern art (deliberately limited to the decades between 1910 and 1960); (2) the mutual comparison between the writings of the first expo- nents of modernist art and the works of those artists; (3) what is the factor that makes all different endeavours one modern school or period in the history of art and, finally, (4) I undertook the task to outline a concept of

mutual comparison between the writings of the first expo- nents of modernist art and the works of those artists; (3) what is the factor that makes all different endeavours one modern school or period in the history of art and, finally, (4) I undertook the task to outline a concept of

mutual comparison between the writings of the first expo- nents of modernist art and the works of those artists; (3) what is the factor that makes all different endeavours one modern school or period in the history of art and, finally, (4) I undertook the task to outline a concept of

94 94 94 Letters Letters Letters

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.82 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:44:40 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Letters Letters Letters Letters

art definite enough to exclude no-art, yet broad enough to include art from the cave dwellers to Picasso and to find a reliable measure by which to judge the quality of a work of art.

Instead of digging into the deeper sense of my book, as other reviewers have done, he picks out a few words and side remarks he did not like. His is an angry review. Perhaps he fears that if my arguments and guidelines would take hold of the public the value of many modernist products (namely those which Kenneth Clark in his tele- vision programme 'Civilisation' calls 'hideous') would tumble like the stock exchange on a 'Black Friday'. His last sentence is so impertinent that I do not think it will impress any sensitive reader.

Frederick Solomon New English Art Gallery and Studio

Charles and Liberty Sts. Rochester, NH 03867, U.S.A.

'Baudelaire: Selected Writings on Art and Artists'

In company, no doubt, with many other readers, I admire the translator's skill displayed by Jonathan Mayne in his translations of Baudelaire's critical articles; nor would I presume to question Bradford Collins's opinion of my own versions [Leonardo 7, 275 (1974)].

My choice of the articles in question was made before I knew of Mayne's two admirable publications and in ignorance of the fact that the library editions of these were to appear as paperbacks. I was guided in my selec- tions by two considerations, both obvious enough, namely, my personal preferences and, coinciding with these, the wish to offer the public not so much what is least known as what, in my view, is the best of Baudelaire the critic.

The fact that, as a result, I have in my own way gone over much the same ground as Mayne does not seem to me so regrettable as Collins thinks; it gives me the satisfaction of being in Mayne's good company and, what is much more important, gives the reader the assurance he needs that, since selection there had to be, my selection is a good one. Collins's kind remarks on my Introduction are appreciated.

P. E. Charvet Cotswold House

Painswick, Gloucestershire, England

'Painting the Nude'

I am honored that Frank Covino finds my book at times 'startling', containing 'a certain sensitivity and freedom of expression' [Leonardo 7, 276 (1974)]. I have the following comments on the three major points of his displeasure: (1) The dust jacket description of Jerry Bowles's involve- ment was prepared in advance and used on all books in the series as a stock insert. It does not apply to me. All the words in my book are my own; (2) I must deny author- ship of 'Hamm's putrido' or risk being haunted by irate baroque masters. Weber's Res-n-Gel was the only megilp mentioned in the book. It is safe even in the hands of a thoroughgoing bungler. Ralph Mayer is not the last word in all cases (cf. Jacques Maroger's Secret Formulas of the Masters for detailed accounts of the many variations of megilp used by Leonardo da Vinci, Reubens, Rembrandt, et al). There is strong evidence that artists of this period did not use our current liquid linseed-oil variations to achieve their translucent paste-like impastos. However, traditional megilp should be used with fear and trembling. My Res-n-Gel paintings have not developed cracks in nineteen years; (3) as regards 'too young' and 'too hirsute' models, Covino's libido and ability to maintain aesthetic detachment are his own affair, to be sure, but faulting a

art definite enough to exclude no-art, yet broad enough to include art from the cave dwellers to Picasso and to find a reliable measure by which to judge the quality of a work of art.

Instead of digging into the deeper sense of my book, as other reviewers have done, he picks out a few words and side remarks he did not like. His is an angry review. Perhaps he fears that if my arguments and guidelines would take hold of the public the value of many modernist products (namely those which Kenneth Clark in his tele- vision programme 'Civilisation' calls 'hideous') would tumble like the stock exchange on a 'Black Friday'. His last sentence is so impertinent that I do not think it will impress any sensitive reader.

Frederick Solomon New English Art Gallery and Studio

Charles and Liberty Sts. Rochester, NH 03867, U.S.A.

'Baudelaire: Selected Writings on Art and Artists'

In company, no doubt, with many other readers, I admire the translator's skill displayed by Jonathan Mayne in his translations of Baudelaire's critical articles; nor would I presume to question Bradford Collins's opinion of my own versions [Leonardo 7, 275 (1974)].

My choice of the articles in question was made before I knew of Mayne's two admirable publications and in ignorance of the fact that the library editions of these were to appear as paperbacks. I was guided in my selec- tions by two considerations, both obvious enough, namely, my personal preferences and, coinciding with these, the wish to offer the public not so much what is least known as what, in my view, is the best of Baudelaire the critic.

The fact that, as a result, I have in my own way gone over much the same ground as Mayne does not seem to me so regrettable as Collins thinks; it gives me the satisfaction of being in Mayne's good company and, what is much more important, gives the reader the assurance he needs that, since selection there had to be, my selection is a good one. Collins's kind remarks on my Introduction are appreciated.

P. E. Charvet Cotswold House

Painswick, Gloucestershire, England

'Painting the Nude'

I am honored that Frank Covino finds my book at times 'startling', containing 'a certain sensitivity and freedom of expression' [Leonardo 7, 276 (1974)]. I have the following comments on the three major points of his displeasure: (1) The dust jacket description of Jerry Bowles's involve- ment was prepared in advance and used on all books in the series as a stock insert. It does not apply to me. All the words in my book are my own; (2) I must deny author- ship of 'Hamm's putrido' or risk being haunted by irate baroque masters. Weber's Res-n-Gel was the only megilp mentioned in the book. It is safe even in the hands of a thoroughgoing bungler. Ralph Mayer is not the last word in all cases (cf. Jacques Maroger's Secret Formulas of the Masters for detailed accounts of the many variations of megilp used by Leonardo da Vinci, Reubens, Rembrandt, et al). There is strong evidence that artists of this period did not use our current liquid linseed-oil variations to achieve their translucent paste-like impastos. However, traditional megilp should be used with fear and trembling. My Res-n-Gel paintings have not developed cracks in nineteen years; (3) as regards 'too young' and 'too hirsute' models, Covino's libido and ability to maintain aesthetic detachment are his own affair, to be sure, but faulting a

art definite enough to exclude no-art, yet broad enough to include art from the cave dwellers to Picasso and to find a reliable measure by which to judge the quality of a work of art.

Instead of digging into the deeper sense of my book, as other reviewers have done, he picks out a few words and side remarks he did not like. His is an angry review. Perhaps he fears that if my arguments and guidelines would take hold of the public the value of many modernist products (namely those which Kenneth Clark in his tele- vision programme 'Civilisation' calls 'hideous') would tumble like the stock exchange on a 'Black Friday'. His last sentence is so impertinent that I do not think it will impress any sensitive reader.

Frederick Solomon New English Art Gallery and Studio

Charles and Liberty Sts. Rochester, NH 03867, U.S.A.

'Baudelaire: Selected Writings on Art and Artists'

In company, no doubt, with many other readers, I admire the translator's skill displayed by Jonathan Mayne in his translations of Baudelaire's critical articles; nor would I presume to question Bradford Collins's opinion of my own versions [Leonardo 7, 275 (1974)].

My choice of the articles in question was made before I knew of Mayne's two admirable publications and in ignorance of the fact that the library editions of these were to appear as paperbacks. I was guided in my selec- tions by two considerations, both obvious enough, namely, my personal preferences and, coinciding with these, the wish to offer the public not so much what is least known as what, in my view, is the best of Baudelaire the critic.

The fact that, as a result, I have in my own way gone over much the same ground as Mayne does not seem to me so regrettable as Collins thinks; it gives me the satisfaction of being in Mayne's good company and, what is much more important, gives the reader the assurance he needs that, since selection there had to be, my selection is a good one. Collins's kind remarks on my Introduction are appreciated.

P. E. Charvet Cotswold House

Painswick, Gloucestershire, England

'Painting the Nude'

I am honored that Frank Covino finds my book at times 'startling', containing 'a certain sensitivity and freedom of expression' [Leonardo 7, 276 (1974)]. I have the following comments on the three major points of his displeasure: (1) The dust jacket description of Jerry Bowles's involve- ment was prepared in advance and used on all books in the series as a stock insert. It does not apply to me. All the words in my book are my own; (2) I must deny author- ship of 'Hamm's putrido' or risk being haunted by irate baroque masters. Weber's Res-n-Gel was the only megilp mentioned in the book. It is safe even in the hands of a thoroughgoing bungler. Ralph Mayer is not the last word in all cases (cf. Jacques Maroger's Secret Formulas of the Masters for detailed accounts of the many variations of megilp used by Leonardo da Vinci, Reubens, Rembrandt, et al). There is strong evidence that artists of this period did not use our current liquid linseed-oil variations to achieve their translucent paste-like impastos. However, traditional megilp should be used with fear and trembling. My Res-n-Gel paintings have not developed cracks in nineteen years; (3) as regards 'too young' and 'too hirsute' models, Covino's libido and ability to maintain aesthetic detachment are his own affair, to be sure, but faulting a

art definite enough to exclude no-art, yet broad enough to include art from the cave dwellers to Picasso and to find a reliable measure by which to judge the quality of a work of art.

Instead of digging into the deeper sense of my book, as other reviewers have done, he picks out a few words and side remarks he did not like. His is an angry review. Perhaps he fears that if my arguments and guidelines would take hold of the public the value of many modernist products (namely those which Kenneth Clark in his tele- vision programme 'Civilisation' calls 'hideous') would tumble like the stock exchange on a 'Black Friday'. His last sentence is so impertinent that I do not think it will impress any sensitive reader.

Frederick Solomon New English Art Gallery and Studio

Charles and Liberty Sts. Rochester, NH 03867, U.S.A.

'Baudelaire: Selected Writings on Art and Artists'

In company, no doubt, with many other readers, I admire the translator's skill displayed by Jonathan Mayne in his translations of Baudelaire's critical articles; nor would I presume to question Bradford Collins's opinion of my own versions [Leonardo 7, 275 (1974)].

My choice of the articles in question was made before I knew of Mayne's two admirable publications and in ignorance of the fact that the library editions of these were to appear as paperbacks. I was guided in my selec- tions by two considerations, both obvious enough, namely, my personal preferences and, coinciding with these, the wish to offer the public not so much what is least known as what, in my view, is the best of Baudelaire the critic.

The fact that, as a result, I have in my own way gone over much the same ground as Mayne does not seem to me so regrettable as Collins thinks; it gives me the satisfaction of being in Mayne's good company and, what is much more important, gives the reader the assurance he needs that, since selection there had to be, my selection is a good one. Collins's kind remarks on my Introduction are appreciated.

P. E. Charvet Cotswold House

Painswick, Gloucestershire, England

'Painting the Nude'

I am honored that Frank Covino finds my book at times 'startling', containing 'a certain sensitivity and freedom of expression' [Leonardo 7, 276 (1974)]. I have the following comments on the three major points of his displeasure: (1) The dust jacket description of Jerry Bowles's involve- ment was prepared in advance and used on all books in the series as a stock insert. It does not apply to me. All the words in my book are my own; (2) I must deny author- ship of 'Hamm's putrido' or risk being haunted by irate baroque masters. Weber's Res-n-Gel was the only megilp mentioned in the book. It is safe even in the hands of a thoroughgoing bungler. Ralph Mayer is not the last word in all cases (cf. Jacques Maroger's Secret Formulas of the Masters for detailed accounts of the many variations of megilp used by Leonardo da Vinci, Reubens, Rembrandt, et al). There is strong evidence that artists of this period did not use our current liquid linseed-oil variations to achieve their translucent paste-like impastos. However, traditional megilp should be used with fear and trembling. My Res-n-Gel paintings have not developed cracks in nineteen years; (3) as regards 'too young' and 'too hirsute' models, Covino's libido and ability to maintain aesthetic detachment are his own affair, to be sure, but faulting a work of art because it is not something else, rather than dealing with it on its own terms is preference, not criticism. The natural endowments of the models were neither hidden nor stressed, per se. I was preoccupied with media,

work of art because it is not something else, rather than dealing with it on its own terms is preference, not criticism. The natural endowments of the models were neither hidden nor stressed, per se. I was preoccupied with media,

work of art because it is not something else, rather than dealing with it on its own terms is preference, not criticism. The natural endowments of the models were neither hidden nor stressed, per se. I was preoccupied with media,

work of art because it is not something else, rather than dealing with it on its own terms is preference, not criticism. The natural endowments of the models were neither hidden nor stressed, per se. I was preoccupied with media,

design concepts and emotive potentials. The publishing staff edited out male studies, older models and semi-nudes, presumably in the interest of consistency and their preferences.

Glenn B. Hamm Dept. of Creative Arts

Purdue University West Lafayette, IN 47906, U.S.A.

My wife was amused by Glenn B. Hamm's comments on my libido in his letter to the editor above. More seriously, can art 'criticism' possibly be exercised without the motivation of 'preference'? I fully understand Hamm's reaction to my necessarily subjective analysis. No one but an author can understand the anxiety that results when, after years of art work he writes a book and his ego is raised to great heights by the praises of friends, relatives and students, he is subjected to a blow of criticism from a colleague. One of the commendable tactics of Leonardo is to place authors on the other end of the critic's stick.

The only statement that I might retract from my review concerns the actual authorship of Painting the Nude. If, indeed, the paragraph describing Jerry G. Bowles's involve- ment 'does not apply to' Hamm but was, as he states, 'prepared in advance and used on all books in the series as a stock insert', I seriously challenge the publisher's license to print such misleading information. The practice of some publishers to assign royalty-nibbling editors to ghost write books for artists who are capable of describing their craft is well known to me. When Sterling 'MacIl- something' of Van Nostrand Reinhold tried to rewrite my first book, I gave him a ticket back to his editorial office in New York and let the book gather four years of dust before it was published as I wrote it. That is the bone in my throat, Glenn Hamm, and I suspect it did influence my criticism, for which I do apologize.

On the use of 'megilp', I stand by Mayer but I agree that my warning was in reference to its traditional recipe; Res-n-Gel is probably safe, since Hamm's paintings have survived 19 years without cracking, but I believe he should take into account centuries rather than years.

Frank Covino Academy of Art

841 Old Post Road Fairfield, CT 06430, U.S.A.

'Designing with Natural Forms'

When S. W. Hayter reviewed my book [Leonardo 7, 277 (1974)] it seems that he had an entirely different book in mind. I would be interested in his book, should he intend to produce it and I am sure that his visual and verbal analyses would be worthy of attention. But I wish that he had evaluated what I actually did in my book, rather than speculated on what ought to have been done. He seems to have entirely missed my own stated purpose and I can only assume that he looked at the pictures but skimmed over the text. To quote myself: 'When I use the word "research" in connection with the experiments in this book, I am speaking of a poetic rather than a scientific approach to the accumulation of bits and pieces of visual and verbal information about a subject. . . .' (p. 63). And in the Introduction (p. 11), I think I have made it quite clear that my book is in no way a design teaching manual, nor is it exclusively addressed to the artist. Further, I said: 'I ask the reader to accompany me on my exploration of a different approach to concentration: an opening out and relaxing of the attention, allowing it to play freely with any idea which hovers in the vicinity of the chosen subject. .. .'

design concepts and emotive potentials. The publishing staff edited out male studies, older models and semi-nudes, presumably in the interest of consistency and their preferences.

Glenn B. Hamm Dept. of Creative Arts

Purdue University West Lafayette, IN 47906, U.S.A.

My wife was amused by Glenn B. Hamm's comments on my libido in his letter to the editor above. More seriously, can art 'criticism' possibly be exercised without the motivation of 'preference'? I fully understand Hamm's reaction to my necessarily subjective analysis. No one but an author can understand the anxiety that results when, after years of art work he writes a book and his ego is raised to great heights by the praises of friends, relatives and students, he is subjected to a blow of criticism from a colleague. One of the commendable tactics of Leonardo is to place authors on the other end of the critic's stick.

The only statement that I might retract from my review concerns the actual authorship of Painting the Nude. If, indeed, the paragraph describing Jerry G. Bowles's involve- ment 'does not apply to' Hamm but was, as he states, 'prepared in advance and used on all books in the series as a stock insert', I seriously challenge the publisher's license to print such misleading information. The practice of some publishers to assign royalty-nibbling editors to ghost write books for artists who are capable of describing their craft is well known to me. When Sterling 'MacIl- something' of Van Nostrand Reinhold tried to rewrite my first book, I gave him a ticket back to his editorial office in New York and let the book gather four years of dust before it was published as I wrote it. That is the bone in my throat, Glenn Hamm, and I suspect it did influence my criticism, for which I do apologize.

On the use of 'megilp', I stand by Mayer but I agree that my warning was in reference to its traditional recipe; Res-n-Gel is probably safe, since Hamm's paintings have survived 19 years without cracking, but I believe he should take into account centuries rather than years.

Frank Covino Academy of Art

841 Old Post Road Fairfield, CT 06430, U.S.A.

'Designing with Natural Forms'

When S. W. Hayter reviewed my book [Leonardo 7, 277 (1974)] it seems that he had an entirely different book in mind. I would be interested in his book, should he intend to produce it and I am sure that his visual and verbal analyses would be worthy of attention. But I wish that he had evaluated what I actually did in my book, rather than speculated on what ought to have been done. He seems to have entirely missed my own stated purpose and I can only assume that he looked at the pictures but skimmed over the text. To quote myself: 'When I use the word "research" in connection with the experiments in this book, I am speaking of a poetic rather than a scientific approach to the accumulation of bits and pieces of visual and verbal information about a subject. . . .' (p. 63). And in the Introduction (p. 11), I think I have made it quite clear that my book is in no way a design teaching manual, nor is it exclusively addressed to the artist. Further, I said: 'I ask the reader to accompany me on my exploration of a different approach to concentration: an opening out and relaxing of the attention, allowing it to play freely with any idea which hovers in the vicinity of the chosen subject. .. .'

design concepts and emotive potentials. The publishing staff edited out male studies, older models and semi-nudes, presumably in the interest of consistency and their preferences.

Glenn B. Hamm Dept. of Creative Arts

Purdue University West Lafayette, IN 47906, U.S.A.

My wife was amused by Glenn B. Hamm's comments on my libido in his letter to the editor above. More seriously, can art 'criticism' possibly be exercised without the motivation of 'preference'? I fully understand Hamm's reaction to my necessarily subjective analysis. No one but an author can understand the anxiety that results when, after years of art work he writes a book and his ego is raised to great heights by the praises of friends, relatives and students, he is subjected to a blow of criticism from a colleague. One of the commendable tactics of Leonardo is to place authors on the other end of the critic's stick.

The only statement that I might retract from my review concerns the actual authorship of Painting the Nude. If, indeed, the paragraph describing Jerry G. Bowles's involve- ment 'does not apply to' Hamm but was, as he states, 'prepared in advance and used on all books in the series as a stock insert', I seriously challenge the publisher's license to print such misleading information. The practice of some publishers to assign royalty-nibbling editors to ghost write books for artists who are capable of describing their craft is well known to me. When Sterling 'MacIl- something' of Van Nostrand Reinhold tried to rewrite my first book, I gave him a ticket back to his editorial office in New York and let the book gather four years of dust before it was published as I wrote it. That is the bone in my throat, Glenn Hamm, and I suspect it did influence my criticism, for which I do apologize.

On the use of 'megilp', I stand by Mayer but I agree that my warning was in reference to its traditional recipe; Res-n-Gel is probably safe, since Hamm's paintings have survived 19 years without cracking, but I believe he should take into account centuries rather than years.

Frank Covino Academy of Art

841 Old Post Road Fairfield, CT 06430, U.S.A.

'Designing with Natural Forms'

When S. W. Hayter reviewed my book [Leonardo 7, 277 (1974)] it seems that he had an entirely different book in mind. I would be interested in his book, should he intend to produce it and I am sure that his visual and verbal analyses would be worthy of attention. But I wish that he had evaluated what I actually did in my book, rather than speculated on what ought to have been done. He seems to have entirely missed my own stated purpose and I can only assume that he looked at the pictures but skimmed over the text. To quote myself: 'When I use the word "research" in connection with the experiments in this book, I am speaking of a poetic rather than a scientific approach to the accumulation of bits and pieces of visual and verbal information about a subject. . . .' (p. 63). And in the Introduction (p. 11), I think I have made it quite clear that my book is in no way a design teaching manual, nor is it exclusively addressed to the artist. Further, I said: 'I ask the reader to accompany me on my exploration of a different approach to concentration: an opening out and relaxing of the attention, allowing it to play freely with any idea which hovers in the vicinity of the chosen subject. .. .'

design concepts and emotive potentials. The publishing staff edited out male studies, older models and semi-nudes, presumably in the interest of consistency and their preferences.

Glenn B. Hamm Dept. of Creative Arts

Purdue University West Lafayette, IN 47906, U.S.A.

My wife was amused by Glenn B. Hamm's comments on my libido in his letter to the editor above. More seriously, can art 'criticism' possibly be exercised without the motivation of 'preference'? I fully understand Hamm's reaction to my necessarily subjective analysis. No one but an author can understand the anxiety that results when, after years of art work he writes a book and his ego is raised to great heights by the praises of friends, relatives and students, he is subjected to a blow of criticism from a colleague. One of the commendable tactics of Leonardo is to place authors on the other end of the critic's stick.

The only statement that I might retract from my review concerns the actual authorship of Painting the Nude. If, indeed, the paragraph describing Jerry G. Bowles's involve- ment 'does not apply to' Hamm but was, as he states, 'prepared in advance and used on all books in the series as a stock insert', I seriously challenge the publisher's license to print such misleading information. The practice of some publishers to assign royalty-nibbling editors to ghost write books for artists who are capable of describing their craft is well known to me. When Sterling 'MacIl- something' of Van Nostrand Reinhold tried to rewrite my first book, I gave him a ticket back to his editorial office in New York and let the book gather four years of dust before it was published as I wrote it. That is the bone in my throat, Glenn Hamm, and I suspect it did influence my criticism, for which I do apologize.

On the use of 'megilp', I stand by Mayer but I agree that my warning was in reference to its traditional recipe; Res-n-Gel is probably safe, since Hamm's paintings have survived 19 years without cracking, but I believe he should take into account centuries rather than years.

Frank Covino Academy of Art

841 Old Post Road Fairfield, CT 06430, U.S.A.

'Designing with Natural Forms'

When S. W. Hayter reviewed my book [Leonardo 7, 277 (1974)] it seems that he had an entirely different book in mind. I would be interested in his book, should he intend to produce it and I am sure that his visual and verbal analyses would be worthy of attention. But I wish that he had evaluated what I actually did in my book, rather than speculated on what ought to have been done. He seems to have entirely missed my own stated purpose and I can only assume that he looked at the pictures but skimmed over the text. To quote myself: 'When I use the word "research" in connection with the experiments in this book, I am speaking of a poetic rather than a scientific approach to the accumulation of bits and pieces of visual and verbal information about a subject. . . .' (p. 63). And in the Introduction (p. 11), I think I have made it quite clear that my book is in no way a design teaching manual, nor is it exclusively addressed to the artist. Further, I said: 'I ask the reader to accompany me on my exploration of a different approach to concentration: an opening out and relaxing of the attention, allowing it to play freely with any idea which hovers in the vicinity of the chosen subject. .. .'

The fact that my own concentration led me to describe only those experiments or observations on the four subjects I chose would seem to be evidence enough that I do not assume the teacher-pupil role. Yet, Hayter finds

The fact that my own concentration led me to describe only those experiments or observations on the four subjects I chose would seem to be evidence enough that I do not assume the teacher-pupil role. Yet, Hayter finds

The fact that my own concentration led me to describe only those experiments or observations on the four subjects I chose would seem to be evidence enough that I do not assume the teacher-pupil role. Yet, Hayter finds

The fact that my own concentration led me to describe only those experiments or observations on the four subjects I chose would seem to be evidence enough that I do not assume the teacher-pupil role. Yet, Hayter finds

95 95 95 95

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.82 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:44:40 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions