From: John Peters <cf071>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 12:07:15 -0500 (EST)

To Jean Gaffney and all who saw in my questions about RAPUNZEL an implication that the art may be beyond children: Profuse apologies, but no such impliction was intended. In twenty-odd (with and without the dash) years of laboring in this vinyard, I've never come across anything that could qualify as "beyond children". I do suspect that more of Zelinsky's visual symbolism in this book (see Linnea's post) may be lost than grasped by any viewer who hasn't spent a decade or so looking at and thinking about art, but there's plenty to appreciate and respond to in the paintings at any level of experience and expertise.
        I'm a little dubious about Jean's "expose children to great art by exposing them to this book" (a paraphrase, but I think I got it right) argument; why not use the originals, or reproductions of same, and let Zelinsky get on with sharing his own vision and insight with us?

Fond Regards, John Peters New York Public Library cf071 at freenet.buffalo.edu
***These letters can be rearranged into a Standard disclaimer***
Received on Mon 02 Feb 1998 11:07:15 AM CST