Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!topaz!LAURENCE@SU-CSLI.ARPA
From: LAURENCE@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Van Gogh
Message-ID: <2293@topaz.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 15-Jun-85 22:42:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.2293
Posted: Sat Jun 15 22:42:43 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 16-Jun-85 09:22:34 EDT
Sender: daemon@topaz.ARPA
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 15

From: Laurence R Brothers  <LAURENCE@SU-CSLI.ARPA>


I must agree with Bill Ingogly on one point: Is there ANYONE in the
world who thinks Rockwell is better or even nearly as good as
Van Gogh? I doubt it. I'm sure Bill knows "de gustibus..." but
his comment I believe was more aimed at the intent of a work of art.
Rockwell and Van Gogh both succeed at their art brilliantly, but
Rockwell is not trying to do anything interesting (much like a read
by an enjoyable "hack" writer) while Van Gogh was transcending the
limits of Art as it was defined in his time and doing something
truly new. 

-Laurence
-------