<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Edvard Munch: Girls on the Pier</title>
	<atom:link href="http://artandcritique.com/edvard-munch-girls-on-a-pier/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://artandcritique.com/edvard-munch-girls-on-a-pier/</link>
	<description>Critical articles on artists from various periods, including contemporary daily/frequent painters. Art interpretation guide.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 11:35:08 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: John Mattingly</title>
		<link>http://artandcritique.com/edvard-munch-girls-on-a-pier/#comment-653</link>
		<dc:creator>John Mattingly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:49:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://artandcritique.com/2007/11/19/edvard-munch-girls-on-a-pier/#comment-653</guid>
		<description>Thank you for a characterization of phsychoanalytic criticism as "lazy and bad practice".  While I myself cannot resist noticing that there are three girls, and that they are suspended in an egoic position between upper and lower levels, and that the vegetable mound obscures (conscious) structures above and below and etc, I am fully aware that this is all in good Fun.  Having some background in "real science" before studying humanities, I have no patience with those who would promote a Fun critical theory as anything remotely scientific.  Frivolous efforts at pseudo-scientific authorization take much of the Fun out of what should be a harmless exercise for students. But worse, there are those who would embelish Freudian Fun not only with childish pseudo-scientific, but with dangerous pseudo-medical authorization, and who would take harmless exercises in application of critical theory to the level of police-state tools for the labeling of perfectly sane citizens.  Freud is Fun...but only for the harmless humanities.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for a characterization of phsychoanalytic criticism as &#8220;lazy and bad practice&#8221;.  While I myself cannot resist noticing that there are three girls, and that they are suspended in an egoic position between upper and lower levels, and that the vegetable mound obscures (conscious) structures above and below and etc, I am fully aware that this is all in good Fun.  Having some background in &#8220;real science&#8221; before studying humanities, I have no patience with those who would promote a Fun critical theory as anything remotely scientific.  Frivolous efforts at pseudo-scientific authorization take much of the Fun out of what should be a harmless exercise for students. But worse, there are those who would embelish Freudian Fun not only with childish pseudo-scientific, but with dangerous pseudo-medical authorization, and who would take harmless exercises in application of critical theory to the level of police-state tools for the labeling of perfectly sane citizens.  Freud is Fun&#8230;but only for the harmless humanities.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
