________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, January 15, 2013 3:40:44 PM Subject: Re: Art is money
Did I say that (see below)? I understand Cheerskep's point, that he had to be the editor-gatekeeper to protect us from being diseased by sloppy writing; however, my point was that as editor he could stop what he alone determined was bad writing from being published while the art critic usually makes judgments after the work is 'published' or exhibited. Thus the art critic needs to explain a judgment whereas the editor does not. I think this can instill a particular hubris in the editor whereas the critic is mostly the subject of others' hubris. Incidentally, John McPhee's article in the current (Jan.14) New Yorker about his modes of structuring his writing processes is very interesting. wc William is right when he says later in his post that, as an editor, I must have seen numerous careless, "quick-typed" novels and stories. And every time I did I felt it was affront to serious practitioners of the "art".
