Letter: Mailer goes after the bigger picture

Jeremy Stiles
Saturday 30 November 1996 19:02 EST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Having read Norman Mailer's book on Picasso, Marc Jordan has preferred, it seems, not to review it ("Cubism with the Lights Out", Review, 24 November).

His image of a publishing executive sitting in New York or Boston deciding on the combination of Mailer and Picasso as a money-spinner is not convincing when you recall that Mailer was considering a study of Picasso in the 1960s. In Cannibals and Christians (1966), with Cubism as a starting point, Mailer speculates on the relationship between shape and form and on the influence of the artist's unconscious.

Jordan believes that Mailer's book is inferior to the books of John Richardson, but does not tell us how it is inferior. Mailer has much to say about the psychology of the artist in general, on the difference between concepts and forms, on the possible inspiration for Picasso's "split heads" and on visual metaphor. He puts foward theories, while acknowledging that Picasso "detested theory".

The visual artist has every right to detest theory, but a critic should be able to theorise. A book reviewer should review the book at hand.

Jeremy Stiles

London SW17

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in