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]