You know what is driving me particularly batshit about this dissertation? Without getting into specifics, the researchers I am using are depending upon works of art to tell them things about life in the past, and they keep praising these works as high quality and taking them as the gospel truth. Not to put too fine a point on it, but these researchers have no idea what they're talking about. Some of these "works of art" suck diseased monkey balls and remind me of when I was learning to draw and couldn't get anything aligned properly. Irises that aren't symmetrical don't necessarily indicate that the subject had a neurological disorder. Sometimes, they just indicate that the artist sucked. I'm talking particularly about Fayum portraits, which set me off today, but it applies to almost everything I've looked at. Yes, some of the artists were brilliantly good, but talent varies, and people seem to not be taking that into account. Some of them did indeed suck, just as many artists today suck.
And that's all I have to say about that. Maybe art school made me all opinionated, but have these researchers thought of, oh, maybe showing these to contemporary artists and asking about the validity of them? Because they seem to be totally unqualified to judge quality on their own and should seek help.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment