Yes John, but fortunately one doesn't have to quite care whether Hockney sways academia about how who did what when. He makes interesting observations about art, which is good, and a little unusual, in itself. In science, one studies the history of science of course, but not exactly Science-History as the subject. They even teach Business-Ethics in business schools now. Still don't teach aesthetics in the art department. And still look at slides and take notes at the same time--ruined my handwriting!--as if a damn xerox hasn't been invented. I enjoy Hockney's goading the academics, for its own sake, because I think it's a bit of a ruse, the way it's taught.

Perhaps I'm just bitter because my ground-breaking work on Picasso's neglected "Paul McCartney Period" of the 1920's has been largely ignored. Such works as The Pipes Of Paul McCartney, Antibes, Summer, 1923; Two Paul McCartneys Reading A Letter, Paris, 1921; or even the modest tempera on wood, Paul McCartney Abducting A Woman, Juan-les-Pins, 1920--merit further consideration in light of all those guys looking just like Paul McCartney, damn it.

   And then the New Yorker published a piece on Balthus, by some hack, wimpishly "exposing" the improbability of his pretention to some sort of aristocratic title, and such trivial nonsense. Dopey notions that he'd painted himself as a woman in The Guitar Lesson, along with piles of Freudian gunk. (Why is cross-dressing so often associated with great art? Leonardo/Mona, Shakespeare in Love, blah blah) Yet they totally ignore and continue to reject my research which demonstrates beyond question that when Balthus painted himself as The King Of Cats (1935) he was really only a minor Duke to a family of Mole-rats who he had painstakingly dressed up as cats!

    The art-establishment deserves the needling that Hockney gives them, from his practical working knowledge as an artist. Then maybe my own research will find a more welcome reception!!!