Mr. Upton, To be honest, it was kind for you to consider my rather flip
response enough to post such an articulate reply. I hope I haven't offended I
reread my post and cant really defend it. These kinds of outbursts are
exactly why I mostly lurk on lists. Quick readings and ill-considered Reponses
are not needed on this otherwise quality list. I'm afraid I'm guilty. I guess
what I was responding to (outside of my rather bad mood today and yesterday and
the day before that...) is that I'd hoped the question posed by James (even
though I think it was probably meant rhetorically) "Why should anybody place
the number nine hundred and eleven displayed two thousand times into a
context?" might be answered in some way. Its a silly question and I think I
know the dismissive tone it was asked in, but surely, if there were something
to be said about the work in a critical sense this would be a pretty basic
question. I havent read anyones positive response to the work but
only criticisms of those who dont like the work it begins to feel like its
not o.k. for people to have negative opinions about work (even if they are
shallow and heavily biased against conceptualism ) that a negative opinion
about work automatically translates to a negative opinion of the author and I
dont like to assume that (but I may have missed something). But in response to
Michael pointing out the depth Alan's previous work and position on western
imperialism and putting it into context and so on - I think James has a small
point. Knowing an artist's previous work and stances on political issues etc.
doesn't really tell us what this particular work may be representing (although
it can help). In other words regardless of values expressed in past works we
may inadvertently represent values that we despise in our current work. Not all
works successfully say what we intend. I guess its up to the audience to
judge
or maybe not?
<netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Dear Mr Cooley
I don't actually get anything much out of Carl Andre.
It has been suggested that he is a charlatan and I don't think that. I
can't remember how I came to that conclusion. It's some time since I
looked at the work.
If I particularly liked it, I could perhaps say why and that would be a
defence in the older sense.
Here I felt that I was making a defence in a narrower and cruder sense
where one defends another from an unprovoked and irrational attack
James did not, in my judgement, make an assessment. At most he jeered
at the work, neither naming the work of art he referenced not its
artist.
I do not see at all how you can attribute contempt for art criticism to
what I wrote.
Was I mean-spirited? I don't see that either. Because I didn't give due
respect to this jeering?
Perhaps if I understood where and how you think there was any art
criticism in what I answered, then I might understand your remark about
mean-spiritedness.
You say "your message seems to be more contemptuous...", I wonder if
you don't mean "seems to me". I made the same comment on James' post;
and, as there, I want to know *why it seems that - and I mean something
more than "well, it's my opinion". I made this point quite clearly in
what you attack
I wasn't particularly defending Carl Andre, but rather us all - from
judgements made on vacuum-knows-what bases; from boorish jeering (as it
seemed to me, in view of the word "joke", the contempt expressing itself
by not naming that which it condemned arbitrarily); from the idea that
knee-jerk checking of one's own inability to engage is as good as a
considered analysis.
Faced with an inability to engage, one recourse is indeed to reserve
judgement and that is where I am; and, in the case of Andre, have been
for decades.
In the case of Alan's 9/11, I would be more inclined to be partisan and
thought that Michael's comments were useful; and I have little to add.
I am on record as praising of Alan's work and am hoping later this
year to publish more of his work - I am sadly behind my own schedule
there.
It was in my mind when I wrote to think "Here we go again" because
there were many similarities between James' attack to those of others in
the past that actually offer no critical method. By and large such
attacks seem to me to miss the point(s) of Alan's work, applying
inappropriate critical bases (when they have *any critical bases) or perhaps
just
assuming that their own irritation with Alan's work is evidence that it
is objectively irritating i.e. not making a distinction between a
personal response and an attempt to make an objective judgement
I would add to my list of things I am resisting: the upside down
thinking which allows an adverse comment without argument and then demands
anyone who objects to the adversity of the comment must make a defence of
what has been slandered: Well, what would you do then? is how it is
sometimes expressed - and that will not do
It was the manner of James' attack to which I objected
You say "Perhaps James didn't offer an effective critique but at least
his comments were about the work and not a personal attack."
Is that true? James says of the work "It seems a joke to suggest it be
taken *seriously*"; and I do not see how that can be anything but an
attack upon the writer who is so clearly serious - and not to forget the
association with "old what's his face" upon which I have already
commented. Nor can such a caricature be said to be about the work.
What it is about is James' own unsupported opinions, mostly that he
shouldnt have to read it unless he likes it... Which could be a plea for
dumbing down, or demanding that the artist explain themselves to the
audience's satisfaction (without disclosure of their criteria for being
satisfied). It is not about the work.
I believe that is sometimes called making art democratic But it isn't
any such thing.
It may be that my anger at a repetition of this position, particularly
given the level of jeer and contempt, was overly expressed. In
particular, I might not have prefaced my remarks on "IMHO", though I do still
smell a rat in that usage. Perhaps it would have been polite to keep
that to myself. I withdraw too the charge of prejudice. That wasn't quite
accurate.
all best
L
---------------------------------
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel
and lay it on us._______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
