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 ----- Original Message ----- From: mark cooley To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 3:55 PM Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] 2000 9/11s 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: 9Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 05:40:25 -0000From: "Lawrence Upton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] 2000 9/11sTo: "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 PMSubject: Re: [NetBehaviour] 2000 9/11sIMHO?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 contextualisationIt 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 prejudicesL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Get a free email account with anti spam protection. http://www.bluebottle.com/tag/2
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
