Mr. Upton, Perhaps if you disagree with James' assessment of the work you could offer some defense of the work. I'm reserving judgement myself, but your message seems to be more contemptuous of art criticism and more mean spirited than the post written by James. Perhaps James didn't offer an effective critique but at least his comments were about the work and not a personal attack. With Respect, mark
Message: 9 Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 05:40:25 -0000 From: "Lawrence Upton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] 2000 9/11s To: "NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity" <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original ----- Original Message ----- From: "james jwm-art net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "NetBehaviour for networked distributed" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 11:05 PM Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] 2000 9/11s IMHO? I don't mean to be aggressive, but... _IMHO_ usually precedes remarks that are anything but humble. Perhaps you mean IMO - i.e. with no claim to humility. Many years ago, a fine poet, Allen Fisher, responded to a mean-minded review of a fellow poet by saying "You have made the mistake of thinking that your opinions matter" and urging attention to the work itself and its context. That came to my mind when I read your response to Michael's suggestion of contextualisation It may seem a joke to you; but that's not much use. We need to know why. How it seems to you is about as interesting to the rest of us as knowing what you had for breakfast. I am surprised to see again remarks like _It seems a joke to suggest it be taken *seriously*, it's like old what's his face and his bricks in the tate modern._ _what's his face_ is called Carl Andre and I assume that you are referring to _Equivalent VIII_. It was called "The Bricks" by the press, perhaps because they couldn't remember such a long title and its composition at the same time. Equivalent VIII must be powerful if it raises so much anger after 30 years; so it's probably best to deny the maker his own name, just to be sure. Well done, what's your name. I'll file that under _insurgents_ and _gooks_ As it wasn't suggested by Michael that _any response to it must come only from those who are *serious* and have a thorough knowledge of Alan's work_, there isn't really anything to say beyond noting that you have misrepresented him. I am prepared to try reading further emails from you; but, perhaps, to be consistent, you could send them only to people who share your prejudices L --------------------------------- Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
