On 15/09/15 09:43 AM, Paul Hertz wrote: > > Nevertheless, I am astounded that the moldy fig style of journalism > still persists, where the critic's opinion is the subject matter of the > critique. I suppose it's more entertaining than opening the work up to > the reader's judgement.
I made a deal with myself very early on in my Furtherfield reviewing career to never write a negative review*. This came about as a result of an experience in a gallery where a video projection piece I'd dismissed and was about to walk away from entertained some young children who ran up to it so much that I gave it another try and got much more from it. It can be more work to stick with art (or writing) until you find *something* in it. But a lazy critic is not a good critic, and their criticism is not good criticism. Grab a Counterparty address and I'll send you some critical approval ;-) - http://robmyers.org/critical-coins/ * - This means that in theory I would have to turn down or not write some reviews, but I cannot remember that every actually happening. It's also why no-one should ever ask me to write a review of "Infinite Jest". _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
