.. But it doesn't frighten me, because I studied in France, thank God, and I know of no artist in history who was not 'literary' when it came down to it. Not a single one. And even if they don't appear to be, I know of none and you at least don't recall them, because there is nothing to recall... Sometime or other I'd like to see a > artist, but I didn't even find one in France. Obviously the trouble is that one approaches painting from the other side, so that the word > conceals the point of the thing. Yet even the most beautiful and > sujet (an apple, a grape or any >) doesn't help if there are no foundations, either innate or acquired through hard work... Why don't we say clearly: > and >, but let it be a tree and not a donkey..