Robert Nickelson wrote:
> If that were the simple truth about Picasso's artworks that we are
> just over exposed to it -- then why do some styles never seem
> over exposed and why do we -- consider some artworks masterworks?
> Picasso's works maybe need to be looked at as we look at symbols --
> what we call art seems to become meaningfully appreciated as it moves
> to a symbol. Read Townsend's An Introduction to Aesthetics -- Or
> George Dickie's theories on Anti-Anti-essentialism -- art is defined
> by the artworld, when it is meaningfully appreciated. Some of
> Picasso's works bring tears to my eyes -- a mother and child painting
> at the Art Institute of Chicago -- a large work -- with a large woman
> and baby -- but it is very moving -- it becomes a symbol to me. I
> don't think I will ever get to the point where I am over exposed to
> that deep of a feeling for as long as I live.