Submitted by Jo Dawkins, Mar 14, 2007 11:48

No, a biographer really needs to know about art. And what I have found is that the cricics know less

about what is real versus why certain types of art gets produced in the first place. An example from

the George N'Namdi Gallery were these dominate thighs on a nude drawing. A crictic quoted the

thighs made up and fantasized. A year later I saw a person who could of been the model for the

artist. If people were completely offended by the believe to be then I think there would be less personal

unknowns put in books. Also the biographer should have the privelege of those most familiar and

supportive.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.