Must. Say. Something. Back. Justifying. My. Comments. But. My. Head. DOn'T. Work. That. Well. That's. Why. I. Am. A. Hospital. Porter.
On 10/9/2007, "Lawrence Upton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >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 9/11sI! MHO?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
