[Mike McCarty]

Allan,

I think this may be a good example of a painting that breaks technical rules for the sake of a pleasing overall visual impact.

Your first three criticisms are somewhat presumptuous I think. First, this gentleman may have been one of those narrow headed fellows. A condition commonly attributed to men who invite cats to visit their laps. Also, we don't know for sure that the existing light could not create the circumstances necessary to create the effects you object to. Your analysis may well be correct, but, it's possible that it may not.

I maintain that there should be a presumption of innocence. In my own work I often operate on the principle of plausibility. A passage may not coincide with the precise facts on the ground, but if it is plausible, if it gives a pleasing visual effect, I say do it. Of course this principle can easily be abused and the line crossed very quickly.

I think the majority of folk, including those like you and I who may tend to be more critical, will first make their impression on the entirety of painting. I think a painting should first be evaluated in it's entirety. Based on that first analysis certain minor technical faults may be excused.

I believe that Ms. Beaux woud have possessed the technical ability to create a precise rendition of the facts. I further believe that if she chose to stray from them, as she may have done here, that she should be given the license to do that.

I'm not offended by the position of the cat.

I think that if I had been given the opportunity to critique the anatomy of Ingrid Bergman (back then not now) I would have soon become seduced by the enormity of her many intangible charms, and any minor physical defects would have soon been forgiven.