Hi
>Laurence, you probably think I'm bullshitting now, but no: No >(i'm probably only trying to prove i'm not the prejudiced asshole that i think you think i am. No > I sometimes write things that are not my position and assume people will see that.) It wasn't at all clear >I was attempting to question why 2000 9/11's, being what it is, should be elevated as a serious work OK. It did not come over as serious criticism. A direct question might have been a better approach. >... (but the attempt got mixed up with a misinterpretation of Michaels comments)... It also got mixed up with your complementary classification of Andre's sculpture as _a joke_ >>But the work is less important than the talk that arises from it. >And that does not really say much does it, considering the trouble it's caused - though that trouble is nothing compared with 911. Perhaps not. It depends how one views the nature of art. I don't think there was any claim by Alan as to the importance of his text. I suggest it is best seen as part of an ongoing larger production. I don't think his intention was to produce a "great" stand alone piece of literature all the best Lawrence ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Get a free email address with REAL anti-spam protection. http://www.bluebottle.com/tag/1 _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
