return to worldwidereview.com, the home of critical reviews

Re: My reply to Charles Thomson, Stuckist

From:     Charles Thomson
Category: Art
Date:     01 November 2006
Time:     01:38 PM

Review:

Hey, well thanks for the apology, but I don't want you to feel bad, as I don't feel hurt and angry. I'm 
highly flattered you've bothered to write about us, but I just needed to set some things straight in the 
interests of intellectual objectivity, you understand. 

Anyway, I still think it's bonkers to say that in your view we don't believe what we're saying, when you 
don't have a scrap of evidence to support that view. I might just as well say that in my view you are a 
piece of cheese or a skyscraper. It would mean nothing.  If I say I believe something, then I believe it. 
It's simple. I might be deceiving myself about the thing I believe in (i.e. it might be wrong), but not the 
actual fact that I do believe in it.

It's not linguistic pedantry, though it might be a misunderstanding of your intention, which I assumed 
was to say we don't believe in concepts - this is something that has been presumed by others on 
more than one occasion. 

Cheers! 


return to worldwidereview.com, the home of critical reviews