I'm not following this at all. Why would it be unsafe to criticize Cory negatively? Everyone should feel free to publicly give their opinion on an artist's work. But be prepared to defend your remarks and don't expect the artist to be happy about it. I'm just stating the obvious... what's the big deal?
re: institutions not reblogging PJ's review of Cory
To include Eyebeam isn't exactly fair as their reblog uses guest editors and the only control they exercise over it is picking those editors (I assume they retain the right to remove highly objectionable posts). Perhaps the editor simply overlooked it or didn't find it reblog-worthy for whatever reason.
Tom's overall point is correct. Institutions shouldn't be choosing topics to cover, artists to highlight or exhibitions to mount based on personal relationships. When he extended that argument to commenters here he took it to far. Individuals have every right to tailor whatever they might like to mention or argue over or pick sides based on their personal relationships.
|
re: institutions not reblogging PJ's review of Cory
To include Eyebeam isn't exactly fair as their reblog uses guest editors and the only control they exercise over it is picking those editors (I assume they retain the right to remove highly objectionable posts). Perhaps the editor simply overlooked it or didn't find it reblog-worthy for whatever reason.
Tom's overall point is correct. Institutions shouldn't be choosing topics to cover, artists to highlight or exhibitions to mount based on personal relationships. When he extended that argument to commenters here he took it to far. Individuals have every right to tailor whatever they might like to mention or argue over or pick sides based on their personal relationships.
- twhid 6-08-2007 7:36 pm