Sir, - Safe in my ivory tower, I felt I had some idea about what makes artists great. I thought it was their ability to express the deepest and truest human emotions, in an unforgettable and unique way, and I agreed with Dostoevsky that "without art a man might not find his life worth living." So I was in complete agreement with the sentiments expressed by Fintan O'Toole in his column of December 12th.
However, Monica Sheehan (December 19th) seems to lay greater store by the "ability to have a farreaching influence into popular culture". According to this definition, Andy Warhol and Van Eyck are on the same level (and so, perhaps, are Barbie and the Venus de Milo). She scorns Mr O'Toole's "artistic elitism and conservatism" and reminds him that "many great artists are not appreciated in their own era". But I thought that that was precisely what he was criticising - the fact that a great museum is honouring (as though he were a Picasso or a Van Gogh) someone who was an exceptionally clever dress designer.
A great showman? Certainly. A great artist? We all use the word very loosely these days, but I believe that Mr O'Toole was hoping that at least the Metropolitan Museum would maintain a sense of proportion in the face of celebrity and commercial adulation. I am as distressed as he that it did not. - Yours, etc.,
From Harriet O'Donovan Sheehy
Dalkey, Co Dublin.