Beware the obtuse

It is a cliche but true that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Person A admires a painting of a forest that looks pretty much like a forest. Person B demands much more and might prefer a forest painting with greater artistic interpretation or "freedom" of expression. Person C might thrill to squiggly lines of dripped paint on a canvas that claims it is a forest painting even though it doesn't look like it.

And so it is with great caution that I write to protest the Mary Thomas review of new Chinese art at the Michael Berger Gallery in Point Breeze (April 12).

One of the gallery's exhibits, "The Nature Series" by Fang Lijun, comprises 14 figures, each a hairless head, with hands and feet emerging from a bed of soil. Ms. Thomas suggests these figures are "reductive in detail but powerful in expression." Powerful? She further rhapsodizes that the heads are "voluptuously highlighted, poised on the edge of communicating something lively or even profound." Profound? One might ask, how? To further our understanding, Ms. Thomas describes the hairless heads as "inflating golden puddles."

"The Nature Series" may very well be innovative, mysterious, strange or even thought-provoking, but it is an unacceptable stretch of language and perception to argue that "inflating golden puddles" of hairless heads stuck in a tray of mud are profound. Profound is not a word that can be used carelessly.

I'd like to believe, that despite my advanced age, I am able to look at or listen to artistic expression that pushes the envelope beyond the traditional. My problem is that too many modern art critics and reviewers venture into obtuse lyrical descriptions that border on the ridiculous.

The basket for letters that charge me with being "hopelessly out of date" is open. I recognize the risk I have run and ask only that you use words that make sense.

Adam Lynch
Monroeville