Of course. Sorry to imply that this system is solely yours. I should
have clearly stated that these are classifications that are universally
accepted and not just your own, although I wonder if I was misunderstood
by any readers other than yourself.
Nonetheless, this system is of more use to those who need to categorize
artworks by technique than it is to artists and curators looking for new
ways to treat art scholarship. That is what I meant by "the most
parochial of academic purposes": it is an elegant and efficient albeit
quaint and somewhat limited way of looking at art production. Regarding
art outside these prescribed universal basics may be beyond your level of
scholarship, which would explain your speculation that MOMA has possibly
blundered by not following these rules. But, anything's possible! If
this really is a blunder as you imagine, I'd be very interested in the
outcome. Thanks and I will stay tuned.
>by attempting to expand curatorship by breaking down previous boundaries?
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>This is one of the very best English euphemistic translation of: "by making
>a stupid mistake" I have ever heard. Certainly politicians could use you as
>a very eloquent writer --this is a compliment. The problem is that some
>people can see through this. I know, we are a minority but...
You are kind to compliment my writing, Mr. Nadeau. Actually, the problem
is that some people seem reluctant to venture beyond their own
parameters. Hopefully, you are a minority ;)