In a message dated 4/20/2004 5:50:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< Naturally, "revisionism" is a subjective accusation against another
 person's subjective interpretation of history when it is not in line
 with one's own subjective interpretation of history.  It's like a child
 saying "poop on you" when s/he is unhappy with their playmates decision. >>

My use of "revisionism" was not intended to be a pejorative "accusation,"
merely an observation that your negative opinion of Leonardo is opposed to
prevailing opinion among art historians and the Leonardo-loving public, not
necessarily my personal interpretation.  Is that not accurate?  There was no intent to
say "poop on you."  Your revisionism is a fact, not merely my opinion about
your subjective interpretation.  Not that there's anything wrong with
revisionism!  Historians practice it all the time, and more power to them.

As for historians and museums which sell Leonardo souvenirs back-peddling if
Leonardo suffered a loss of popularity (I'd have said back-pedaling in
accordance with the cycling metaphor, but back-peddling neatly adds the economic
connotation--a nice bon mot), I don't really think fear of economic disaster is
what keeps Leonardo on his pedestal.  But you're more cynical than I.

Yes, Correggio was also a master of sfumato, but don't forget that Leonardo
did it first.  Janson called Corregio's sfumato "Leonardesque."  So let's give
the old guy a couple of points for originality.

The difference between Pepys's writing and Hemingway's is duly noted; the
former's diaries were a hobby, while "Papa" wrote for a living, but that's beside
the point (at least my point).  Pepys and Hemingway are considered important
because of what they wrote--period. You seemed to be saying that Leonardo and
Cellini would not be as highly regarded as artists if it hadn't been for their
writing (one might also contend that there wouldn't have been as much
interest in Cellini's autobiography if it hadn't been preceded by his colorful
lifestyle), and Pepys didn't seem analogous to Leonardo and Cellini on that issue.
Pepys's diaries appeared to be a tangent from Cellini's autobiography, rather
than having anything to do with a high regard for artistic production resting
unfairly on verbal output.  It's not as if Pepys is considered a great
politician or bureaucrat merely because he wrote interesting stuff.  So suffice it to
say I still don't get your point about Pepys.  The explanation didn't show a
connection between trivia about 17th century England and the allegedly
inflated reputations of Renaissance artists.

David Haberstich

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).