Let me use one of Curt's remarks to illustrate my point here.
"…why limit yourself to merely admiring saatchi's system-manipulating
He used the word "manipulating". This implies that what Saatchi does
deviates from what is objectively ideal. When you believe in this type of
absolute/objective ideal independent of subjective differences, the world is
a very hostile and frustrating place. I am not saying that this is a wrong
way to be. It is your choice, just the same way, no one is asking you to
What I am trying to show is that there is a way to appreciate the world
without believing in this type of objective ideals. I am not saying it is
better, but I am saying that it is a perfectly legitimate position to be.
Wittgenstein once said, "The only way to change the world is to change
yourself." You have nothing to lose by trying to understand this
> —–Original Message—–
> From: timothy whidden [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 4:02 PM
> To: Dyske Suematsu
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: The Myth of Meritocracy in Fine Arts
> Attempting to get back to Dyske's original essay…
> In a nutshell, Dyske's point is this: thinking of the art world as a
> meritocracy is false as there is no objective basis on which to judge
> the merit. Therefor art world success is based not on merit but on
> subjective decisions by a few powerful opinion-makers in the art world
> so let's stop kidding ourselves that successful artists are the best
> Does that sum it up fairly?
> If yes, I'll proceed, if no, could you put it in a nutshell Dyske?