Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.
I was with my words 'stereoypical verbage' referring back to Nancy's
comment that she felt the Biggers article was condescending and promoted
X-Authentication-Warning: web.pub.getty.edu: majordom set sender to
owner-newartsednet using -f
From: EVasso <EVasso>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 17:42:01 EST
Subject: Biggers' article
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11)
In a message dated 98-01-09 06:49:44 EST, you write:
<< For me, the attitude of the article (which reads like fiction) raises a
questions about the broader implications. For example, how do we,
as art teachers, best teach about artists of different cultures
without being (unintentionally or otherwise) condescending or promoting
stereotypes? How can we present the most accurate and nonprejudicial
portrayal of an artist? Should we interpret an artist's life (as I feel the
of this article did) as well as his or her work? How much of an
artist's life do we need to know to fully appreciate his or her
work? What do you think about these issues?
For those of us who didn't read the original article, can you be more specific
about your concerns. I don't get them from the quoted sections. Betty L
thought it was "stereotypical verbage" and you thought it condescending. How?