Critic’s View of LACMA Show Gives Some a Bad Impression

Christopher Knight’s mean-spirited critique of the current display of Impressionist art at the LACMA West building makes one pause and reflect on the purpose of art criticism (“A Vacuous Tour of Impressionism,” Aug. 18). Is it only to see well-turned phrases that have nothing of substance to offer the reader but bitchiness?

Knight’s writing, insisting on more portrayals of sensual oysters and dead toreadors, did nothing to enhance my understanding of Impressionism, but it did offer a glimpse into the mind-set of an obviously frustrated writer.

Next time, Chris, lighten up and enjoy the show. And when they ask you to curate their next exhibition, don’t forget to put up the “For Snobs Only” sign.

EVA ANDRY

Venice

I will be the first to accept that not every painting done by the artists we have come to know as Impressionists must be classified as “extraordinary works of art.” What I cannot accept is Knight’s prerogative to use his pen (computer?) as a scalpel to slash not just the exhibit but also the desires of the average art lover to visit the showing. Every paragraph drips with scorn and disdain.

I don’t know Knight’s CV background in art history and appreciation, but I am sure that the average visitor to museums both here and abroad is not that extensively educated in the intricacies of these renderings. If admission to art exhibits was restricted only to viewers with a high level of art education, the museums would be empty indeed.

ADELAIDE TATTO

Pacoima

It is beyond belief that Knight pointed out only one positive aspect about the entire exhibition, Monet’s “Woman With a Parasol.” Knight fails to mention that three Monets in the exhibition were all superb enough to appear in year 2000 calendars presently in stores.

He fails to mention four stunning Pissaro paintings. The Corot paintings he chops down are magnificent examples of peasants captured in contemplation in poetic and dreamy landscapes, and his labeling the later Renoir works as “in decline” is absurd.

Knight’s belief that this exhibition “adds nothing to our understanding” is wrong. He should speak for himself. I learned plenty, thanks to the exhibition’s audio, which intelligently explains how these artists built on the techniques of those who preceded them.

HOWARD AMSTER

Tarzana

What gives Knight the right to out of the clear blue make irrelevant comments in attacking “The Pageant of the Masters” as a sporting event and not an art event? The art review was snide and uncalled for. To paraphrase it, the review was an uncheerful exercise in dumbing-down a fine newspaper.

JON BROD

Los Angeles