I will give the example of the table of coverage: Bar at Folie Bergère. On a 1/4 page in body 20 the authors tell us (1) that there was no bar placed there to madness shepherdesses (2) the reflection of the waitress is false and (3) the man in the reflection should hide the waitress (sic) and that it is again an error. Point. We go to the following table.
Why not, if it was a simple introduction impertinent to help us return to the table. But then nothing, absolutely nothing about the fact that on his last painting Manet consciously sets up this device as a summary of all what he experienced during his life and not because it unable to properly paint as suggested hear the authors. How dare that man should reflect the waitress hiding without stress that it is human, it is we the viewer, the client of the prostitute and that this is the culmination of an artist fascinated by new male / female relationships and how to involve the viewer in the artwork.
This book does not just look at the tables by the small end of the telescope! It is constantly in misinterpretation.
