Thursday, February 4, 2016

Blog Notes

Never read your critics. This well known advice I offer now to all who find themselves mentioned in these pages in an unflattering light. You are of course welcome to read and to comment, but I think in general it is not in your natures to find much here of value to you.

On comments. I have, as far as I know, no ability to edit comments. I can reject them and delete them, but I cannot fix your typos or twist your meaning, as far as I can tell.

For the record I think I have declined to publish two comments in total, excepting duplicates.

I loathe sycophancy. Should you find yourself agreeing too much with me I beg you to find some point upon which to differ and to throw it in my face. Lest I find it necessary to do something expressly to make you hate me.


  1. I have a vague feeling that I'm disagreeing with you on "artist's statements" - well, I seem to recall reading something on the blog about the topic and being a touch surprised and then electronically scampering quickly away - and I'm assuming that was from reading the, oooh, opposite opinion to mine? Anyhow, I'll pretend that you said that you detest artist's statements!
    Artist's statements are awesome. I adore artists' statements and curator's tours - they provide context, texture, nuance, blablabla. I find art without context barely endurable; I can deal with it, but context brings it alive. Without context, a painting - or a photo, whatever - on the wall or over there is just a glob of colours or stuff which may or may not be somewhat pleasing in a… well, almost just a biological way? - I wanna know WHY and HOW and WHEN and WHAT NEXT - that's where the fun is.
    Essentially, you're experiencing the art all over again, but from a different angle, inevitably with more depth to consider, and additional things (the artist) to poke at and respond to.
    And of course, exactly what the artist chooses to reveal, or what the curator chooses to focus on, involuntarily reveals yet more information about art/person. Heh. (that's me acknowledging that sometimes vapid twits DO expound cruelly on their vapid creations and I prefer to avoid that whole more painful end of things).
    anyhow, I do hope that we disagree on artists' statements - too bad if we don't...

  2. In today's internet there is only space for sycophants. On forums, you have to agree that whatever brand the forum is devoted to is the best. On blogs, you have to agree that the blog owner is the real deal. On social sites, you have to "like" all your friends posts regularly. There is no option to dislike.

    Today's internet is not about "discussion". It is about having the maximum amount of followers. Followers, by definition, agree with you. Success is defined socially, either by having many followers or by proving they will buy your picture of a potato for truckloads of money.

    Success, fame, is the only currency. Celebrity is a career name. Why would anyone pay for content if it is not by someone famous?

    1. If course! This blog is no exception! Well, maybe a little. But I still despise fawning, clubby, arrangements and will have none of it!

  3. Your bete noire, Ming Thien, has published some rather good images of the Thaipusam festival in Indonesia. Both in B&W (which I prefer)and color. Quite a contrast, from a humanistic perspective, to the alienation-themed "Idea of Man" series.

  4. Errata to my comment: Malaysia, not Indonesia. Stupid gringo.

    1. Yeah, they're definitely in a different category. I find myself disliking them but only for reasons I cannot articulate. So it might be just prejudice. Regardless, there's nothing for me to write!