Thanks for sharing that, it's good to read it in textual form. What do you make of Twombly? I've been trying to understand what there is to see in his work; I a

Thanks for sharing that, it's good to read it in textual form. What do you make of Twombly? I've been trying to understand what there is to see in his work; I am a scientist rather than an artist and I appreciate that I may not understand some skills. However, I am still in favour of an "emperor's new clothes" type interpretation of his work - his initial work was panned by critics; but when the later critics write about his work, they reference his history as a "cryptologist" in the Army, and they say things like "you can see AMOR here and ROMA here in the scrawls" (in the book "Your Kid Could Not Do This" or some similar title) as if there's something _deep_ there. ("others can't see it, but he was a cryptologist once, so there must be something I'm missing") So my take is similar to one up above here - Pollock became huge when he got a great review from a highly influential critic. Same with Twombly. I was reading the Smithsonian's transcript of Jim Sanborn's Oral History and I see that theme a few times in there -- like his dad was an artist, and at a young age he went to an art opening where he, his parents and the artist knew the art was terrible but his parents were praising the work as profound, confusing him; and later when he recognized the importance of being in the good books of influential curators and gallery owners in DC; e.g. when Yuri Schwebler became upset with him, he said it set his career back 10 years. So, a "who you know" game. Praise everyone, stay in everyone's good books, and hope you get noticed.