Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/04/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Chandos Michael Brown wrote: > But: I view this particular series as the most unmitigated kitsch, > warmed over Maxfield Parrish, cloying self-conscious, simply too > precious for words. My suspicion is that his client chose the dress (a > testament to her dubious taste, not his). I was mildly embarrassed to > view the series. It's simply, too, too, well, artificially > sentimental, > but utterly without soul. I'm compelled to wonder about the > sensibility > of a woman who would imagine this is an appropriate or attractive > depiction of her relationship with her child--as a prop in a vanity > portfolio. Way cool! An honest opinion! A controversial one at that! ;) It's funny how different people see the same thing differently. I saw them as an exercise in clichés, the Christian religious art of the 15th/16th century. The light from the heavens, the muted pastel tonal scale, the flowing fabric, the cherub-like child, all reminded me of the religious iconography that takes up a major portion of the Swedish art collections that I've seen. As a result -- because these were just shots of a mother and her baby - -- I thought they were hilariously funny! M. - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html