I can tell from his letter (“A Question of Genius,” Dec. 9), that Mr. Ronald E. Renmark is far more intelligent and sophisticated in the arena of art than I will ever be. Yet, his letter confused me. He asserts that an earlier Style Weekly critique by Mike Dulin of somebody called Richard Nickel (“Children of Men,” Arts & Culture, Nov. 25) mistakenly called the artwork of Nickel “sculpture” when it was not — it was only a photograph. Mr. Renmark goes on, confusingly, talking about and trashing the great sculptors of all time. What gives? Is Nickel a photographer or a sculptor?
Mr. Renmark dismisses the “superficial elements” found in the works of Michelangelo, Lorenzo Ghiberti and others. He says that when he looks at the masterpieces, he feels nothing. On the other hand, a popsicle-stick sends goose bumps up his spine. Without knowing, I would guess the Mr. Renmark has no idea who Count Basie was and went into mourning when Michael Jackson killed himself. Perhaps he would enjoy an art appreciation course at the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Virginia Commonwealth University or Maggie Walker High School.
David H. Worrell Jr.