Imagination through her viewfinder (New York here is a prop of scenes) refreshed and gained me new understandings of some of my (once upon) favorite artists. Timely, before “the gentrification of my emotion” languish on the commonly available or mere classic, and forgo the marginalized, the provocateur, the obscure.
I relish the narratives of her subjective analysis in words, but prefer the appreciation of visual art in my actual view.
The main issue I encountered is “lonely” tackled here. Author’s loneliness was defined as chronic shameful feeling while not intimately engaged with another human being, which appears to be generalized or one kind only. Aren’t all accomplished artists (especially visual artists, writers included, and many performing artists) lonely? How about psychological proclivity? The book tried to cover broader and deeper issues, nonetheless I don’t find a focal point.
One cause of feeling lonely is societal alienation and discrimination. I guess artists collected (except for Edward Hopper) here fit in such kind of loneliness.
The book is articulate on artists striving in adversity (“the art of being alone”), but I don’t see elucidation on impact of conventional sense of loneliness over art creation. It's not about a benign topic such as "Geniuses are loners". It reveals the insidious surrounding us.