In response to the Sept. 1 letter, "Monet was overrated," I would like to offer the following. I was delighted to see The News editorial reflecting on the cultural and fiscal impact of the "Monet at Giverny" exhibit, which just ended its run at the Albright-Knox Art Gallery in Buffalo.
And while I give The News credit for printing a point of view exactly opposite its own, I feel the writer really missed the importance of Monet's works regarding the gardens at Giverny.
To be able to state that one "can appreciate the beauty and inspiration of Monet's home in Giverny, France," yet not see the evolution in the works presented, shows an amazing lack of depth for anyone who even remotely appreciates the arts and post-impressionist artists.
I realize that this exhibit was very period-exclusive. I would like to recommend that the writer reread the wonderful literature distributed by the staff at the Albright-Knox. To be appreciated, this exhibit required a little bit of background on the subject matter.
The fact that Monet created most of these works when he was in his 60s and in failing health provided interesting insight to one of the great masters of the genre. It is only with this knowledge that one can really marvel at some of the most beautiful works ever created by one of the true masters.
To compare one of the world's greatest painters with the talents of a pop artist like Andy Warhol is self-serving.
I and many other Buffalonians have demonstrated that we can appreciate the work of an artist who painstakingly refines and perfects his work -- always striving for perfection and depiction of natural beauty -- over an artist whose main claim to fame was a reproduction (and 15 minutes in the limelight) of an exact replica of the next 100 shoppers' lunches.
JOHN A. CURR III