| re: Harris addresses this in a lengthy footnote on page 115. | |
| Posted by: ryhog 04:20 pm EST 01/26/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Harris addresses this in a lengthy footnote on page 115. - Billhaven 03:33 pm EST 01/26/21 | |
|
|
|
| I have no disagreement with a portrait that illuminates his outsider/observer-ness, and I think everything you mention can inform that. What I am saying, however, is that unless you want to simply admit that you are interested in the gossipy side of things for their own sake, there should be some nexus between any of these things and something illuminating. If you want to talk about some sexual aspect of a person's development, great, but Nichols was not an outsider when he carried on with Avedon (and I am pretty confident he did), he was the ultimate insider. When one writes about things of this nature without intellectual depth, what is being illuminated? If there a gap in our understanding, how do you fill it when all you know is that they had a relationship, if you don't know anything about it? These are genuine questions. Do you see any meat that can be put on these bones? When a biographer writes about their subject, they investigate what supports their thesis. If you hunt and don't find anything, you don't guess. Not if you want to be respected in your field. I am open to hearing about what we know and how it informs. | |
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: Harris addresses this in a lengthy footnote on page 115. - Billhaven 03:33 pm EST 01/26/21 |
| Next: | re: Harris addresses this in a lengthy footnote on page 115. - Billhaven 06:00 pm EST 01/26/21 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.023195 seconds.