ho/wuss crit 101

Hi Curt,

I'd be interested who this piece of txt is aimed at, regarding the subject
header.

marc


> "Critics who refuse to make judgments, who take pride in lavishing
> praise (or at least smiling a benign countenance) upon every new
> artistic phenomenon that swims within their ken (horrifying or not as
> it may be) are quickly seen to be, let's face it, either the whores
> or the eunuchs of their profession. They may illicit our pity or
> inspire our contempt, but they can never command our respect… They
> belong to the history of publicity rather than the history of art."
> - Hilton Kramer, 2002
>
> _
> _
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>

At 8:37 PM +0100 8/14/03, marc.garrett wrote:
>I'd be interested who this piece of txt is aimed at, regarding the subject
>header.


Hi Marc,

The text is aimed at critics who refuse to make judgments, who take
pride in lavishing praise (or at least smiling a benign countenance)
upon every new artistic phenomenon that swims within their ken
(horrifying or not as it may be). It is also aimed, by implication,
at those artists who seek benefit from such critics and chafe under
the scrutiny of more legitimate critics.

The slang terms used in the subject header are derived from Kramer's
mention of whores and eunuchs.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ho [cf: third entry]
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=wuss

peace,
curt


> > "Critics who refuse to make judgments, who take pride in lavishing
> > praise (or at least smiling a benign countenance) upon every new
> > artistic phenomenon that swims within their ken (horrifying or not as
> > it may be) are quickly seen to be, let's face it, either the whores
> > or the eunuchs of their profession. They may illicit our pity or
> > inspire our contempt, but they can never command our respect… They
> > belong to the history of publicity rather than the history of art."
> > - Hilton Kramer, 2002
> >
> > _
> > _
> > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
> >

Hi Curt,



http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=wuss
A person regarded as weak or timid and especially as unmanly.

Your reference to wuss suggests that you favour a more masculine approach. A
more up front, direct critical state of thought.

So, if you are keen for a more up front approach (same here), may be it
would be good to know who actually is implicated in the text
so they know who they actually are. For it can get a bit confusing for those
who are criticized if they do not know that they are being criticized -
surely that's reasonable.

For instance, if I am one of those artists who might be sucking up to
critics so that I can get a warm reception by the 'rigid' - gatekeeping
art-world that we all pathetically in our own slutfest mannerisms prostitute
ourselves in; then it would be advantagous to know my own mistakes. So I can
move and create strategies that are more in-line to your informed and
'referenced' suggestions.

I'm still keen to know who this is also - 'ho/wuss crit 101'
Who is this refering to?
A single person?
Do I know this individual?
Does this individual use this list at all?

'chafe under the scrutiny of more legitimate critics'.
This is macho stuff Curt, 'work till your muscle bound all day long'.
Also, it smells of modernist pitfalls, in its denial context, situaional
circumstance - people who trying to bypass those pillars that block real
talent due to default.

Intersting stuff…

marc


>
> The text is aimed at critics who refuse to make judgments, who take
> pride in lavishing praise (or at least smiling a benign countenance)
> upon every new artistic phenomenon that swims within their ken
> (horrifying or not as it may be). It is also aimed, by implication,
> at those artists who seek benefit from such critics and chafe under
> the scrutiny of more legitimate critics.
>
> The slang terms used in the subject header are derived from Kramer's
> mention of whores and eunuchs.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ho [cf: third entry]
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=wuss
>
> peace,
> curt
>
>
> > > "Critics who refuse to make judgments, who take pride in lavishing
> > > praise (or at least smiling a benign countenance) upon every new
> > > artistic phenomenon that swims within their ken (horrifying or not as
> > > it may be) are quickly seen to be, let's face it, either the whores
> > > or the eunuchs of their profession. They may illicit our pity or
> > > inspire our contempt, but they can never command our respect… They
> > > belong to the history of publicity rather than the history of art."
> > > - Hilton Kramer, 2002
> > >
> > > _
> > > _
> > > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > > -> post: [email protected]
> > > -> questions: [email protected]
> > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > > +
> > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > > Membership Agreement available online at
http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> > >
> > >
>

Hi Marc,

"eunuch" was Kramer's term, I just added "wuss" to make it more
incendiary. I'll sidestep your implicit accusations of
anti-feminism, modernism, and situationist-unfriendliness by simply
saying I'm not a big fan of feminism or situationism, and I've yet to
comfortably set up camp in post-modernism.

"ho/wuss crit 101" parodies the title of an introductory undergradute
course. In other words, "if you want to learn how to be a toothless
critic, here's a primer."

I find it more effective rhetorically to suggest that there are
several people in the room with a stain on their blouse than to say,
"Edith, Joan, and Susan have a stain on their blouse." The former
approach causes everybody to check and judge for themselves according
to their own personal yardstick. If they do decide to change their
blouse, they decide in private and thus own the decision more
personally. If I point poeple out publicly, I just embarrass them
and make them defensive and less likely to change.

I will "name a name," though, just for clarity's sake:
http://www.walkerart.org/gallery9/lifesharing/g9_lifesharing_essay.html

If I allow you to bait me into some macho response, I walk into your
stereotype and discredit my original criticism. It's not an
either/or between "it's all good" and "all ways but my way suck."
That's too simple. Just because I'm dissing the "it's all good"
critical camp doesn't mean I'm advocating a return to totally
subjective personal criticism. I can say a work of art is bad and
explain why without being a dickhead. Can I do so these days without
being accused of asserting my modernist agenda via the violence of my
masculine language? Maybe not at rhizome.

peace,
curt





At 9:25 PM +0100 8/14/03, marc.garrett wrote:
>Hi Curt,
>
>
>
>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=wuss
>A person regarded as weak or timid and especially as unmanly.
>
>Your reference to wuss suggests that you favour a more masculine approach. A
>more up front, direct critical state of thought.
>
>So, if you are keen for a more up front approach (same here), may be it
>would be good to know who actually is implicated in the text
>so they know who they actually are. For it can get a bit confusing for those
>who are criticized if they do not know that they are being criticized -
>surely that's reasonable.
>
>For instance, if I am one of those artists who might be sucking up to
>critics so that I can get a warm reception by the 'rigid' - gatekeeping
>art-world that we all pathetically in our own slutfest mannerisms prostitute
>ourselves in; then it would be advantagous to know my own mistakes. So I can
>move and create strategies that are more in-line to your informed and
>'referenced' suggestions.
>
>I'm still keen to know who this is also - 'ho/wuss crit 101'
>Who is this refering to?
>A single person?
>Do I know this individual?
>Does this individual use this list at all?
>
>'chafe under the scrutiny of more legitimate critics'.
>This is macho stuff Curt, 'work till your muscle bound all day long'.
>Also, it smells of modernist pitfalls, in its denial context, situaional
>circumstance - people who trying to bypass those pillars that block real
>talent due to default.
>
>Intersting stuff…
>
>marc
>
>
> >
> > The text is aimed at critics who refuse to make judgments, who take
> > pride in lavishing praise (or at least smiling a benign countenance)
> > upon every new artistic phenomenon that swims within their ken
> > (horrifying or not as it may be). It is also aimed, by implication,
> > at those artists who seek benefit from such critics and chafe under
> > the scrutiny of more legitimate critics.
> >
> > The slang terms used in the subject header are derived from Kramer's
> > mention of whores and eunuchs.
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ho [cf: third entry]
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=wuss
> >
> > peace,
> > curt
> >
> >
> > > > "Critics who refuse to make judgments, who take pride in lavishing
> > > > praise (or at least smiling a benign countenance) upon every new
> > > > artistic phenomenon that swims within their ken (horrifying or not as
> > > > it may be) are quickly seen to be, let's face it, either the whores
> > > > or the eunuchs of their profession. They may illicit our pity or
> > > > inspire our contempt, but they can never command our respect… They
> > > > belong to the history of publicity rather than the history of art."
> > > > - Hilton Kramer, 2002