Erroneous conclusion by Patasar

Without offering a shred of evidence, or illumination, Patasar made a capricious claim that Cazabon’s images are idealised as an artist’s attempt at giving dignity to a class of people previously treated with less respect. She stated that the perspective also offers an alternative reading to the MacFarlane mas.

On this basis, she erroneously concludes, “We can safely agree that MacFarlane’s intentions were not malicious.” It is difficult to see how an alternative reading in the absence of stated facts can result in a finding of anyone’s intentions.

While it may be true that no one has the right to limit an artist’s reading of particular periods in history, it is one of the duties of an artist to guide imagination, penetrating into the nature of things.

Having regard to the society’s preoccupation with colour, shade and ethnicity (the subject of mental illness in Lowenthal 1972), the intention of an artist should rest on findings of truth, evident to a host of others, drawn from the power of the imagination and representations of the whole, according to the degree of knowledge and facts of which mastery is demanded and the artist possesses.

When a church spire was left out of a landscape of a town, 19th century English painter JMW Turner turned to the author of the sketch and asked why he did not put in the spire.

The artist replied he didn’t have the time, to which Turner responded that the artist should take a subject more suited to his capacity.

Turner understood well enough where an artist is by definition an artisan, the spectator is none the wiser.

That sensibility is necessary for the perception of facts, after which come reflection, and memory. If the artist takes no care to reason upon those impressions and trace them to their sources (both physical and mental), he may remain totally ignorant of the facts that produce them (John Ruskin).

KATHLEEN PINDER via email