Richard:

   So is your point that it is useful to neglect provocative art, since
   the ideas behind it gain even more if they are forced underground?
   It's kind of like the situation in Eastern Europe pre collapse of the
   Soviet Union.  "Subersive" literature was forbidden and therefore
   potent; whereas in the "west" we could write anything we wanted to,
   and the ideas lost all of their potency.

   But I think your post was very much to the point: the value of work is
   negotiated among specialists and various other parties, including the
   public and non-curatorial museum administrators.  You are pointing out
   the process by which the value of art work is determined.  I was going
   off half-cocked and decrying the way that some of this apparently
   bogus stuff is getting the critical seal of approval.  I, of course,
   was ignoring the question of: "who decides?" which is critical.

   I nominate Hank Burchard as the ultimate critical arbiter; I can be
   his pro tem, since we are in such accord. Seconds?

   Eric Siegel
   [log in to unmask]