posted on September 25, 2000 10:45:47 AM new
lagoldie: "The YR has been authenticated by one of the foremost art authenticators in the world, along with three conservators scientific evidence. My opinion is substantiated with factual documents. Your opinions are just that your opinion. They are derived from what you THINK may be the truth. That does not cut it. Stick to facts, unless you can disprove the factual documents with factual documents.We don't need what could have happened or what probably happened. This statement is to all involved in this thread. Keep to facts."
There has been much ado made by the OAS side about "credentials" and "experts" as opposed to the "opinions" of laypersons in the AW camp. Of course, when there is a scientific dispute, knowing the credentials, methodology, etc. of both parties advancing pro and con arguments is indeed quite reasonable.
However, when someone states that "2 + 2 = 5"... no wait... "2 + 2 = pi R squared"... ummm, you mispoke me, I really said ""2 + 2 = the cuberoot of 19"... -- it really is not necessary to have submitted an august and scholary article to the Journal of Advanced Mathematical Thought entitled "New Binomial Differential Equation to Dispute Fermat's Inverse Collorary of Onesies and Twosies" in order to comment with an incredulous, "Say What?"
By OAS standards, the young lad who quite rightly observed that the Regent was Sans Garments, could have his "opinion" that "hey, that dude is butt nekkid" discounted by the fact that he had not received an advanced degree from the Milan School of Couture.
Truthful evidence when presented and then defended withstands scutiny without nary a ripple or qualm. However, when the evidence is proffered in defense of self-serving flim flam, each statement offered, due to their inherent inconsistencies, tends to set off bells in the minds of reasonable observers.
This clearly fradulent auction has set off more mental bells than Quasimodo in the final reel of "Hunchback of Notre Dame."
posted on September 25, 2000 10:48:46 AM new
Honestly, LAGOLDIE, you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the ass.
FACT: Seller embellished his story concerning the painting and it's chain of ownership. There is no supporting documentation that this painting was owned by Brown or was even given to her by Chain. Yet these "facts" were given to us by the seller. These "facts" did not change until holes were punched into his story. If FACTS don't change, then why did the seller change his story?
FACT: Seller still embellishes upon the truth by stating, openly: "Souvenir de Mauve Vincent and Theo" is written upon the painting. Whereas the SCIENTIFIC FACT states that SOUV is apparent. Nothing more and nothing less. Therefore, someone is fibbing. I thought facts didn't lie LAGOLDIE?
FACT: Reciept from the LA COunty Museum of Art shows that the painting received/paid for/etc measures 20x24.
FACT: Yellow Roses measures 20x14.16.. OOPS! Someone made a typo that was never corrected within the last 13 years.
FACT: Dates do not add up on this little museum trip (please refer to the research HQC has done into the dating process for this little piece). When FACTS become apparent as to when who had what and when, then and only then this dating confusion might be cleared up.
FACT: Haskins did not make known his findings of the "molly brown" pencil marks on the frame of this paiting, until 12 years later. OR, he did make known and it was not written into his report that he gave the seller 12 years previously. OR, these findings were included and the seller didn't bother to post that data, and relied upon Haskins to make an afternote, 12 years later. This discrepancy allows one to realize that the entire report that Haskins wrote could be suspect.
FACT: There are too many suspicious changes going on with this auction. 1=too many.
Now, I have presented you with FACTS, directly from the auction site in question. Directly from the documentation in question. Now you tell me where the heck I, or anyone else, committed slander.
You say:
They are openly being discredited without benefit of defense
I say, if their reputations are sound and their work is solid, than nothing we can find on them, will discredit them. The only time they have worry, is if there is actually something to find.
posted on September 25, 2000 10:56:13 AM newThe court would not allow hearsay or a witnesses personal opinion of what could be or may be.
Quite true.
Seller has produced no evidence to corroborate his claims regarding Chain and Brown. These claims are thus disallowed.
Haskins's statement that Rewald said that the painting is genuine is hearsay. Haskins's statement must therefore be disallowed.
An expert witnesses [sic] give their opinion based on their experience and education on a given subject. Their credentials can be questioned...
Haskins, Twilley and McCrone are not "experts" in the field of authenticating works of art. Haskins restores paintings; Twilley is an analytical chemist; McCrone is a specialist in microscopic analysis. Any judgments they make regarding the painting must refer only to their areas of expertise; thus any opinions they give regarding the painting being an authentic Van Gogh must be disallowed.
...[T]he difference with this forum the experts that are being discredited are not able to answer questions.
The only expert who is "not able to answer questions" is the only party whose opinion counts: Rewald.
Twilley, McCrone and Haskins are free to post to this forum in person. If any would like to do so, they - not lagoldie et al. - can post their business phone numbers here and we can begin the verification process, and they can attest in a public forum to the veracity of the seller's claims about the painting, and answer the myriad questions raised about their opinions and connections to the painting and its owner.
posted on September 25, 2000 11:20:29 AM new
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"LAGOLDIE, I have said, time and time again, that this is my opinion. I am entitled to voice my opinion. My opinion is based upon the documents and the embellished story that have been provided by the seller. I can not help the fact that the seller decided to embellish upon his story, thus making almost all aspects of it suspicious. Unfortunately, the evidence that has been cited, from disinterested parties, tends to substaniate my opinions. But once again, that is in my opinion."
In response to rosiebuds statement
I assume you can openly prove the owner embellished on his statements. Did it ever occur to any of you that the provenance was derived by what the owner new of the history of the painting. What had orally been passed on to him when he received the paintings from his uncle. Everyone does not keep documents or receipts to prove where a belonging was obtained. When this mans uncle came into possession of this painting, Van Gogh was unknown, so it would not occur to him to keep documentation on this painting. It would be ridiculous to assume that all persons in our vast world save documents on all purchases or belongings.This gentleman's uncle was bequeathed this painting along with other possessions. To sum up the owner did not embellish he reported what he new of the painting. That is the truth as he knows it.Now the documents, what facts can you provide to discredit these documents? Other then your layman's opinion? I have asked time and again what prove absolutely can any of you give to dispute these documents?You do not have the credentials to make it a respected opinion.I might add you should not have the right to insult the opinions of the experts that have provided their educated opinion's.All have been invited to contact Mr. Haskins. wouldn't it be fair to let him defend his credentials?
Oh by the way you misspelled can not (cannot), and substaniate (substantiate) .
You know if I were one to jump to conclusion or be one to give an my opinion without regard to your feelings, or to take a small mistake,and turn it into a large insult.I might infer that you are poorly educated, don't have a grasp of the English language. But I really would not have the right to make a judgment in regard to your education or grasp of our language based on these few misspelled words . Plus perhaps it would not be fair to judge one on the way they spell? This person might have many wonderful talents, and actually be very intelligent in many other areas of education. I wonder If the world would be a better place if people weren't so critical of one another?
posted on September 25, 2000 11:28:46 AM new
Hey Everybody????
I hope I make some money from all the work
I've done. Meeting someone Wednesday, thats interested in the script. Its just a ouline
with 9 charcters.
I went to the museum this morning and spoke to a curator about how one goes about a authentication. The curators name is Donald Moffet, He was once head of SFMA, back in the 80's. This is what he told me.
No museum will authenticate a painting, not even the Van Gogh museum. Why? Because of the legal rammifications. They will however call in a expert, and that expert will then
give their expert opinion. The authentications come from people such as Haskins, Twilley, McCrone.
No expert on any artist can give authentication only expert opinion on the subject matter.
I also called Mr. Scott Haskins. At first he refuse to speak to me, but when I told him I working a script for a possible film, he relented. This is some of information he related to me.
The writing on the back of the frame is barely visable to the naked eye and really only shows up under infra-red. He has tried to take photos of the writing but it is barely visable. But this is not relevant to the paintings authentication. He will say this, "the frame on this painting is the original frame for the yellow roses". The nail holes in the frame match the nail holes
in the canvas and stretcher bars. The frame was never used for any other painting, but this one.
He said he does not do research on provenence. Thats up to the historians.
Regarding Rewald, he stands by his statements to AW, but did add this, John Rewald was a German who spoke English as
a second language, at the time he was about
84 years old and had just married a 16 year
old German girl. He was also part deaf.
He did examine the painting in person in
January of 1990 at the owners home. He came to Los Angeles at his own expense to see the
owners art collection. While at the owners
he suffered a heart attack nad was taken to
Cedars Sinai hospital in Los Angeles. This was around the middle of January 1990. This can be verified by calling Cedars Sinai hospital in Los Angeles. The owner of the painting and Mr. Rewald became good friends after that experience.
Regarding the dates that everyone tries to make a federal case out of, is inane guesswork by rank amateurs.
posted on September 25, 2000 11:43:12 AM new
Here's an interesting statement from the court document attempting to demonstrate the authenticity of "Sunflowers and Oleander," the painting Bright wanted to sell "Yellow Roses" to buy and on which McCrone worked:
"Contrary to the negative opinions expressed by the majority of the art historians who have come in contact with the Painting or transparencies thereof [including Pickvance], the scientists' opinions, the provenance, inscription and letters by Vincent Van Gogh leads one to conclude that the Painting more likely than not was painted by Vincent Van Gogh."
Hmm, where have we heard this sort of loopy reasoning before?
Interesting that starvnartst is able to get confidental medical information from Cedars-Sinai with just a phone call. I bow to your investigative abilities.
However, the dates' being "inane guesswork by rank amateurs" is a bit debatable. All I did was copy the dates from the documents the seller provided.
Rewald "stands by his statements"? Uh....he's been dead for 6 years....
posted on September 25, 2000 11:43:38 AM new
LAGOLDIE, you really want to nitpick about spelling errors me? Looking at your own post, I don't believe that would be the wisest thing you could do.
You need to explain how you have such an intimate knowledge of what the seller knows and doesn't know. What documents he does and does not have. What is just so interesting as I can not find this information written on the auction site or within this thread by the seller when s/he was supposedly a member.
So, in your own words, stick to the facts.
As far as the documents are concerned, I do not need to discredit them further, as they have alredy been discredited by the indescrepancies that I have detailed previously, several times. I did not make up these errors. There are there, in black and white for anyone to read. I have no doubt, in the line of work that these experts are in, details are essentials. When details don't add up, nothing adds up.
I highly recommend that you do go back and read and comprehend the documents, dates, facts, and answer the questions that have been put before you in my previous posting. With your intimate knowledge of the seller and this painting, I have no doubt that you'll be able to answer them.
posted on September 25, 2000 11:43:59 AM new
Interesting. The "head" of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art from 1974 to 1986 was Henry Hopkins, and from 1987 to 1997 it was John R. Lane. The first curator of painting there was John Caldwell, serving from 1988 to 1993. When exactly did "Donald Moffat" fit in there?
posted on September 25, 2000 11:46:58 AM new
HCQ, The owner is not in litigation to prove the authenticity of his painting. The only litigation the owner appears to be pursuing is litigation against you and other posters for slander, and defamation of character.
I don't know how all can be so cavalier, in regard to this gentleman and his threat of taking action by law? Did it ever occur to you this owner may have the funds to carry through with his threats? To some people this form of slander is intolerable. You could be causing irreparable damage to this gentleman. I think you better get busy, and check some laws on slander, and defamation of character?
[ edited by lagoldie on Sep 25, 2000 12:08 PM ]
posted on September 25, 2000 11:52:33 AM new
From Webster's New World Dictionary:
Slander (slan'der)n. 1. the utterance in the presence of another person of a false statement or statements, damaging to a third person's character or reputation: usually distinguished from libel
Just wanted to clarify that point.
And, exactly what information here is libelous? Like I said before, the LAST thing this guy wants to do is bring this into a court of law. Then he would become known to the world by name. How EMBARASSING! :0
[ edited by athena1365 on Sep 25, 2000 11:56 AM ]
posted on September 25, 2000 11:59:38 AM new
Thank you athena1365...
I was just going to address that point. Some legal eagles heh?
I am curious though as to which branch of the legal code postings on a public forum such as a BBS would fall under? One naturally assumes libel due to the textual quality, but there is a conversational tone that mimics a verbal exchange. Any case law out there?
posted on September 25, 2000 12:05:25 PM new
Response to statement made by HCQ
"Interesting that starvnartst is able to get confidental medical information from Cedars-Sinai with just a phone call. I bow to your investigative abilities"
Again picking out a statement selectively and elaborating on it.
starvnartst, was referring to a conversation he had with Mr. Haskins. If read in it entirety one will see Alex does not state he obtained medical records, he does not state Mr. Reward stands by his statement. He is stating Mr. Haskins will stand by his statements made to AW.In regards to a conversation he had when Rewald was alive. You continue to try and lead these posters to believe your half truths. You give me a direct quote where starvnartst these facts you have written. Give it in whole sentences.
Read the Facts form starvnartst post . Don't twist his words to suit your purpose. What is wrong with you-----
posted on September 25, 2000 12:06:44 PM new
Well, I did find this on Internet libel:
"Libel occurs when a false statement is written which injures an individual by disgracing him. The statement must be about an individual and the readers must be aware that the individual is the subject of the false statement. Furthermore, the defamatory statement must not be an opinion, but rather one of fact. *This is true because . . . only false statements are actionable, and the Supreme Court has held, under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea."
"An individual considered to be a public figure must prove that the libeler knew the statement was false, or had serious questions regarding the truth of the statement. When the individual that was libeled is not a public figure, the threshold to recover damages is lower and requires proving negligence on the part of the libeler."
posted on September 25, 2000 12:06:54 PM new
libel: li·bel
1.
a.A false publication in writing, printing, or typewriting or in signs or
pictures that maliciously damages a person's reputation.
b.The act or an instance of presenting such a statement to the public.
Hmmmm, everything that we've said/written can be found from the seller's own documentation and provenance; therefore, we have not made false publications.
edited to add, due to athena1365 post: we've been saying over and over again, that these are our opinions.
[ edited by rosiebud on Sep 25, 2000 12:12 PM ]
posted on September 25, 2000 12:16:24 PM new
So starvnartst was saying that HASKINS related all this about Rewald? Sorry - hearsay. Let Haskins come here, allow himself to be verified, and post his statements to a public forum where they can be forwarded to interested parties such as Rewald's estate administrator, publisher, and surviving family members.
When this mans uncle came into possession of this painting, Van Gogh was unknown, so it would not occur to him to keep documentation on this painting.
Van Gogh was "unknown" in the "late 1930s" when seller's grandmother died?
That's funny. Walter Felichenfeldt says, in his article about the Wacker forgeries:
"Writing on the subject of art prices in 1913, Meier-Graefe stated: 'Van Gogh's position in the market is rapidly approaching Cezanne's. His works fetch 20 to 40 times what they did ten years ago, and since his death, that is to say in little more than two decades, the price of his works has increased four to six hundredfold. Major works such as L'Arlesienne at Sternheim's and The garden of the asylum with Theo Behrens in Hamburg, which in 1890 cost 100 francs and in 1900 something between one and two thousand francs, might now even fetch more than the most expensive Cézanne.' Carl Sternheim described how he saw L'Arlesienne in 1908 in the window of W. Zimmermann's gallery in Munich, and bought it for the then record price of DM 13,000.7 The other version of L’Arlesienne turns up in 1917 in Paul Cassirer's account books. That picture, which had belonged to the painter Bernt Grönvold, was sold to the Mannheim industrialist Sally Falk for DM 133,000.8 This is one of the highest prices ever recorded in the Cassirer books for a work of any school at that time. "
"In January 1928 with the opening of the van Gogh exhibition at Cassirer's, and ended in [/b]December 1932 with Wacker being found guilty of fraud and the falsification of documents.[/b]"
He goes on to say that
"The legal proceedings, which were given extensive coverage in the press, did much to make van Gogh a household name. No catalogue of his work, no publication of his letters, no record prices and no major exhibitions netted him so much publicity as the Wacker scandal and the attendant battle of the experts."
posted on September 25, 2000 12:24:31 PM new
Response to Rosiebud and all
All documentation can be verified by the persons that prepared them. The persons that prepared them are experts. Their opinions far out weight a laymen opinion.Mr. Rewalds document, has been varied with his signature. This was done through handwriting analysis.,plus several conversations he had with persons that are alive and well. You have slandered this owner along with many other on this chat. You will not be alone in your distress over being sued. You will be in the company of your peers.
posted on September 25, 2000 12:39:30 PM new
DOH! I thought I had missed something there. I just checked at OAS and don't see a "handwriting analysis" anywhere.
Your intimate knowledge of this just gets better and better LAGOLDIE. That being the case, can you please explain this statement that you made?
Mr. Rewalds document, has been varied with his signature.
I'm not clear on what you mean by "varied".
Their opinions far out weight a laymen opinion.
Then why are you so worried about us?
You have slandered this owner long enough...
PLEASE, get the terminolgy correct. You mean to say "LIBEL". However, as you stated in the post that I took your quote from, we are only offering a layman's opinion. And according to the law: [i]
"Furthermore, the defamatory statement must not be an opinion, but rather one of fact." [/i] ... you just cleared us of any libel or defamation.
Since today is my day off, I must get back to my research....... this is such a fascinating subject and there's so many questions and so few facts.
posted on September 25, 2000 12:39:33 PM new
This thread has been amazing.
I am so amazed that OAS can perpetrate such a hoax as this!
Nevermind homemade looking credentials, but even if you look at the painting it looks like a cut down "Starving Artist" sale item. Seriously though, Van Gogh's palette lightened considerably after he got to Paris and even more so at Arles. Even his early work he had a style that was quite unique and saw light much differently than this yellow roses painting - look at his early work of field workers, the dark and light and brushwork are considerably different than that dark YR number.
I applaud HCQ, Abacaxi, Athena1365 and Rosiebud for all the great research.
I suggest that the cast of charactors: flowblue, lagoldie, tightwad2g, starvenartist, theshar, iceblue et al are one in the same.
I am surprised that these folks work so hard to defend this ruse. And that the Moderator doesn't close this thread.
Capriole (only capriole here)
my credentials, merely and art student back in the day.
Though, I confess, Vermeer was/is my fave.
posted on September 25, 2000 12:43:43 PM newlagoldie, I agree with you wholeheartedly that the "Rewald letter" has indeed been "varied".
Anyway, you seem to be extremely well-informed about a number of issues surrounding this painting.
You state that the "Rewald letter" underwent "variation" "through handwriting analysis...plus several conversations he had with persons that are alive and well." Now, no handwriting analysis is mentioned by the owner or Haskins; and only ONE "person" - Haskins - has reported ANY conversation with Rewald (starvnartst was reporting a conversation HE had with Haskins about Rewald).
You also state that "The only litigation the owner appears to be pursuing is litigation against you and other posters for slander, and defamation of character...." and say that the ownern has threatenend "taking action by law? Did it ever occur to you this owner may have the funds to carry through with his threats?" - But OwnerVGYR was suspended weeks ago, and none of us have received so much as an email from anybody threatening litigation.
Hmm. Where do you get this, um, "insider information"?
posted on September 25, 2000 01:17:29 PM new
I have been made aware of these messages by a colleague. She thought that I may find them interesting because I am a teacher of art history doctoral program in the Nehterlands. I must say that english is not my native language so I ask for understanding on my use of the language and its spelling. I only wish to make a few statements and then leave this center. Based on the previous posts I have neither the time or want to joust back and forth. The messages are interesting but lack scholarly quality. I believe that the scientific method was talked about earlier. I see that much research has been done by many but almost none of it is presented or has been conducted in the true scientific method. This method looks at each side of an issue and presents a compilation of reasearch that may completely support your thesis or cast considerable doubt on it. There is to much of the writers own feelings in these messages. Very many insults. This is not how we debate or discuss in the academic arena. I must also say that many master works have been authenticated on less than what has been given here. Please look at provenances from others offered at auction they can be very short and not offer many facts but have experts like Mr. Rewald approving them. All of them could certainly be deconstructed like this one has here. I also must say that from meeting many collectors they can be a eccentric group of people. I think that the owner has much more to build his proof of authenticity but feels above reproach and will not answer or show it to anyone other than a serious buyer. This community of fine art very much does have a culture to its own. But again my interest is only to say that as a reseacher I attempt to not only prove but to disprove my thesis. Reasearch is more objective than what has been presented here.
posted on September 25, 2000 01:34:06 PM new
Oh, yummy!
I have been to MANY auctions. I can assure you that when I go, ALL provenance is available UP FRONT FOR ANYONE TO LOOK AT.
This is an online auction, so it is even MORE imperative that any and all pertinent information be made available. The Internet makes the audience nearly limitless.
The bottom line is that a mystery letter appeared THREE WEEKS into an auction. Why wasn't that letter posted AT THE OUTSET? Did the owner not think it was important, or that only a "real" bidder should be able to see it?
Why should I even make the effort to BECOME a "real" bidder if the information that would entice me to bid on an object is not available to me? Sort of circular as an argument, no?
Regarding the "lack of scientific method" employed by those who have chosen to speak (type?) out on the matter, they have uncovered inconsistencies, back-pedaling, confabulation, and outright prevarication. What "scientific method" SHOULD they have employed?
If you tell me that it is Tuesday, the sky is "mauve" (hehehe), and aliens are landing outside, and I look at the calendar and note it's Friday, glance out the window and see nothing, and the sky is blue, why do I have to examine both sides? The onus is on the SELLER to prove his claims, not on the BUYER to disprove them.
Oh, please.
---SkorpioGal, who continues to try to behave herself, despite a nasty habit of being snippy and sarcastic.
posted on September 25, 2000 01:47:02 PM new
Here's a point I find curious.
HCQ, I followed the link that you posted awhile ago about Bright's patent. Please note that Bright's date of filing for this patent was Dec. 12, 1996.
Now, jump to OAS and the letter from Rewald, which is dated in 1990. Now, I'm probably going to make a fool of myself with this one, but Rewald talks a lot about the brushstrokes.
".. after studying the brushwork and application.."
".. the direction of the brushstrokes are the same as Van Goghs.."
".. The matching of the brushstrokes showed that the same brushes used on this painting, where also used on other known paintings by Van Gogh in that period.."
Now, would someone care to tell me how long brushmark analysis has been used by the "experts" before Bright filed for his patent in 1996? Because otherwise I can't reconcile the dates nor I can't figure out how the art community decided who should get to apply for a patent that everyone was already using.. drawing straws maybe?
edited for clarity
[ edited by rosiebud on Sep 25, 2000 02:42 PM ]
posted on September 25, 2000 01:54:40 PM new
This is my last post. Hopefully.
But I remember reading this article.
CS First Boston Sues Board Posters
By Bill Barker
"On Tuesday, Credit Suisse First Boston filed a lawsuit against a group of eleven message board users alleging that they had posted defamatory messages regarding a CS First Boston analyst, David Maris, and seeking $1 million in damages. The postings occurred on the Elan Corp, plc (NYSE: ELN - news) message board on Yahoo! Finance. Elan is a Dublin, Ireland-based pharmaceuticals company working on a vaccine that it hopes will be effective at stopping Alzheimer's disease -- a concept that I've got to say sounds pretty cool to me. (Go Elan!)"
Read the complete article at:
http://biz.yahoo.com/mf/000714/hill_000714.html
In terms of legal action, Hart Cottage Quilts I think walked a very fine line when they created the "forged John Rewald" letters defaming the seller and then published them for everyone to see.
It would be a very good case for someone who would be interested in making a name for themself in the new world of Internet and online law.
posted on September 25, 2000 01:59:22 PM new
It has been suggested - not by moi - that the postings of a certain party here are remarkably similar in style to the poorly-written court document submitted in connection with "Sunflowers and Oleander" - that if you filter those posts through a quasi-literate secretary (such as one party who's "gots mine" says she uses in lieu of checking her own spelling, grammar and syntax), and you get this bizarre formalese (which IME as a paralegal in corporate, securities, defense and plaintiff litigation I can assure you is very, very unusual):
Note particularly the dismissal of art historians' opinions in favor of "scientific evidence," and that the only way to see the painting before the sale is to either buy a photograph of it OR shell out $250 in advance (apparently non-refundable).
Just putting it out there for consideration...what do you think?
posted on September 25, 2000 02:04:15 PM new
Hey Everybody????
This may be produced by Greenlight Prod. I hope, I hope, I hope.
I never said I called Cedar-Sinai hospital,
I said that it could be verified by calling to see if he (Rewald) was there at the time.
Donald Moffet was a curator, there on something, I did not ask what. I am not a reporter. Call and ask if he was ever there.
And who is that person from the Neitherlands anyway? I speaka da broken englass too.
There are only six people who will make any money on this story. HartCottageQuilt,
because shes the star, Athena1365, Barry,
flowblue2, THESHAR, and myself, because I am doing all the work. I will be sending a e-mail to your private e-mail addresses, after I sign a contract. I hope, Ihope, I hope.
posted on September 25, 2000 02:16:26 PM new
Capriole.
Have you ever heard of Van Meergan? HCQ, please give no help on this one, okay? There has not been any new information to date. Just a lot of cat calling between certain parties.
I am heading down to Los Angeles Tuesday night, I wont be back until Thursday. Keep your fingers crossed.
posted on September 25, 2000 02:17:09 PM new
You gotta love these new posters! It's like a Medusa, with a new head rearing up every time one is lobbed off.
I see that much research has been done by many but almost none of it is presented or has been conducted in the true scientific method. This method looks at each side of an issue and presents a compilation of reasearch that may completely support your thesis or cast considerable doubt on it. There is to much of the writers own feelings in these messages. Very many insults. This is not how we debate or discuss in the academic arena.
rssouvigny, you obviously jest??? LOL! I too am a professional art historian, and have attended a number of conferences, and academia is the MOST back-biting, dog-eat-dog world there is! Art historians LOVE to tear each other up. Example: I was at a conference on Roman architecture at Penn, oh, almost 10 years ago, where the premier contemporary researcher on the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum presented a rather bland paper on his recent findings. Man, when it was over, it was like a shark-feeding frenzy! I was just a budding scholar then, and was in awe of many of these people since I had read all their works, in English, Italian and German. Needless to say, I lost my idealism that day.
I must also say that many master works have been authenticated on less than what has been given here.
I defy you could give onesuch example.
But again my interest is only to say that as a reseacher I attempt to not only prove but to disprove my thesis.
Exactly! What do you think is occuring here?
Reasearch is more objective than what has been presented here.
I think you meant to say "Research has NEVER BEEN more objective than what has been presented here." This is downright invigorating for those of us who enjoy flexing the "thinking muscles".
But, hey, what do I know with my "dime-store" diploma
