nothing if not critical
She takes issue with the first sentence of my catalogue essay because it lacks conviction, or rhetorical flourish, or, well, that special something that 15th century Renaissance humanists had.
Um, okay…point conceded, I guess? Damn you, Pico!
(I totally understand the comparison: When I'm writing about contemporary artists, I immediately turn to Giorgio Vasari.)
A lot of rhetorical questions follow—“Why these artists? Why these projects? What future do these artists envision that other artists don't?”
How will I respond to this? Should I go through point by point and lay out my argument again—even though I feel that I’ve already done so in the exhibition itself and the catalogue essay? Wouldn’t that be a poor use of my time and energy? (Answers: As briefly as possible; no; yes.)
Anyway, I’m happy for the publicity, and the fact that it will bring a few more butts through the door, regardless of what was—or wasn’t—actually said.