Comments on: About

By: desertcherokee

desertcherokee — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 18:48:44 +0000

Adam Frank….It’s clear that you know nothing about Marxism, liberty, or the relationship between Obama and the current Congress. Other than that, yours is a thoughtful comment.

By: Steve Sigelman

Steve Sigelman — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 13:24:01 +0000

Good morning,
Your essay in the 11/21 Post re UC Davis and the use of pepper spray was excellent. It is somewhat of a rare pleasure to read a well-thought out and well written article in the Post. Like others who commented on your page, I look forward to following your articles.

Much thanks
Steve S

By: teachermd

teachermd — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 00:15:53 +0000

I agree with you Bell Clement! Kennitcott – you have a new fan as it is clear that you are a THINKING JOURNALIST (unfortunately a rarity these days)! I will look forward to reading your articles. And yes.. linking the Situationists DEFINITELY CAUGHT MY EYE! Thanks again.

By: Bell Clement

Bell Clement — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:25:12 +0000

Mr. Kennicott – Thank you for your 11/9/11 WaPo comment on Occupy DC in our McPherson Square. I found it brilliant, and appreciate the links you provided to Situationists, etc. A provoking piece in all the best senses. The comments on the WaPo site were troubling – I had hoped urbanists would engage with the ideas you introduced about urban connectivity generated from the grassroots. But alas. Instead, evidence of the – to me curious – rage that Occupy inspires in some. In any case – the article prompts me to begin looking for your byline. Thank you for this good tickle of a read.

By: Tony Deacon

Tony Deacon — Sun, 08 May 2011 21:20:06 +0000

Dear Philip,
I’ve just read your sensitive appreciation of the late John Steane in the June 2011 issue of Gramophone magazine. You say that you may not ever have met him and that this was probably a good thing, since you prefer to retain your imagined view of him. Actually, I don’t think you would have been disappointed.

It was my good fortune to be educated at Merchant Taylors’ School, where -even though I had chosen to pursue sciences- I was taught English by JBS for a year. This would have been about 1969/70.

John Steane was a very nice man, whose lessons were always lively and interesting. He threw himself into the cultural life of the school, playing the organ on occasion and usually directing any school play. He had a puckish energy about him and a good rapport with schoolboys. Even for a Philistine scientist, his was undoubtedly a civilizing influence.

By: Claude Reich

Claude Reich — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 18:13:35 +0000

Hi,

I read your review in the Washington Post about the current Philip Guston show at the Phillips Collection and it left me rather puzzled. You seem to imply that Guston ran out of gas and you doubt that his shift to the figurative was a revolution. This prompts me to ask you 3 questions:

According to you, there is “too much of Guston” in those paintings. Yet, didn’t Picasso say that every painting is a self-portrait?

How does the obvious formal link between his late figurative paintings and the earlier abstract ones precludes his 1970 shift to the figure from being a revolution?

How many “revolutions” does it take to be a great artist and do you expect an artist to constantly renew himself (if my understanding of the last lines of your review is correct)?

By: Emily M.

Emily M. — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 16:46:16 +0000

As a history of decorative arts grad student, I truly enjoyed your article, “A Victorian Fantasy, in Stone.” I typically notice the sets of period films and television series just as much as the storylines, so it was great to read an article which explained the history of such an evocative house. As you mentioned, the Victorian anti-Classicist romanticization of things Gothic and Elizabethan is manifest in Highclare Castle, which one could easily mistake for a 16th-century creation. Although Gothic and Elizabethan Revival architecture did not resonate as much among Victorian Americans, (they seemed to prefer Gothic furniture to Gothic dwellings), we have do have such grand exceptions as the Smithsonian Castle. As a backdrop to “Downton Abbey,” thank you for shedding light to the viewers of Downton Abbey on a structure which, while not actually built in the sixteenth century, represents the Victorian romanticized view of the time of Shakespeare and “Good Queen Bess.”

By: Laurie Strachan (Mr)

Laurie Strachan (Mr) — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 01:03:09 +0000

Every time I feel really bad about what’s happening in or to America it seems I stumble on something that wipes at least some of my fears away. Such a find was The New Republic and in particular your review of Lebrecht’s Why Mahler. When I finished the book, I immediately sat down to write down my feelings about it (I used to be a music critic and I still am a great lover of Mahler’s music). Then I found your review and it was no longer necessary. You had said it all. I suspect this book will destroy Lebrecht’s credibility as a critic/judge/executioner once and for all. It certainly should. Thank you.

By: philipkennicott

philipkennicott — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 21:05:31 +0000

John,
Great to hear from you. I do still write about music, just not on a daily basis… thank goodness. Hope all is well with you.

By: John S. Hilliard

John S. Hilliard — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 18:01:23 +0000

Philip,
Just read your New Republic review of “Why Mahler?’
Wonderful. We still miss your reviews at the Post.

John Hilliard
Composer