<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#3dffff"><FONT SIZE=2>In a message dated 6/11/2001 10:41:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
<BR>dcml-request@stp.ling.uu.se writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"><<This was not an unsolicited argument. You solicited the argument when you
<BR>expressed an opinion that Barks should not be remembered
<BR>for his paintings. I stand by my assertion that anyone who feels this way
<BR>has not bothered to examine the fully body of Barks work
<BR>from this period, making them ignorant>></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR>I've seen many reproductions of Barks' paintings...
<BR> Isn't it enough that the man was a genius of comic book art and story?
<BR> Why try to insist that everything he did was great?
<BR> His paintings are not great.
<BR> Further, I don't believe Barks ever claimed they were great.
<BR>Indeed, I feel sure that he knew people were buying them for his name and the
<BR>subject matter - which is why he switched from other subjects to just ducks.
<BR> To say that Barks is not a world class painter is NOT an insult to Barks.
<BR>
<BR>If you like them, fine, it's your money, your taste. But to insist that
<BR>Barks will be remembered as a painter - (by anyone other than Disney Duck
<BR>fans) is a bit much...
<BR>
<BR>Steven Rowe
<BR>
<BR>Steven Rowe </FONT></HTML>