In the next paragraph, he figures that bullying on one person ain't enough, when he writes that "American Impressionism was never very good to begin with..." If I had the time I'd love to see what he has written about Mary Cassat. And his interpretation of something Hassam wrote is on a par with me attributing his tone in this article to not having enough time in the morning to have his second cup of coffee.

Mr. Kimmelman continually bashes Hassam for stuff that he did later in his life, but if the paintings that he did later in life aren't in the damn exhibition what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? He also subjects Hassam to the 21st century politically correct treatment implying that Hassam's stuff ain't worth the price of the frame using words like "cranky," "jingoistic," "reactionary and xenophobic" to back up his argument. How many nasty people can you name who did significant stuff? One, two, three, four.

Backing up slightly ('cuz I am writing this on the fly, and it ain't gonna see a second draft) at the beginning of the article, Mr. Kimmelman writes, "Retrospectives are supposed to change one's notion of an artist." Yes, that might be the case some of the time, but Museums shows no matter what or when are supposed to inform the public and if they are good make people realize new insights.

He mentions that the exhibit was originally supposed to take place "a few months ago" but was rescheduled so as to be able to coincide with the Republican National Convention that is happening in New York City this fall. Does he actually think that the people running the Met are that dense? Running a show by a racist artist, who according to Mr. Kimmelman was only interested in making money, while there are some influential right-wing people who also seem to be only interested in making money? Political commentary anyone?

--
Posted by Zeke from Zeke's Gallery to Zeke's Gallery at 6/17/2004 12:29:50 PM