Writing outrageous reviews

[CAP]

A number of my art reviews over the past year have been deliberately provocative or insulting, depending where you stand. My hope was that they would at least draw outraged response, engender a lively critical thread. But they didn't. Which means either no one reads them or no one can be bothered with blogs anymore. So much for provocation.

[Jiminy]

Reviews on here? Or on Caps Crits? Or where!?

[CAP]

Hey Jiminy, long time no hear! Welcome back my little cricket.

I meant my reviews here actually. The ones on CAP'S CRITS are more considered, I like to think. Here I shoot from the hip, to the hip.

I was thinking of things like The Bruce High Quality Foundation review, or the Justin Mortimer piece or even the Matt Collishaw one.The Bruce High Quality Foundation piece wasn't really going out on that much of a limb, because as I indicated in the review, preceding reviews were already pointing in that direction. Then again, I happened to see a really grovelling review just this month! (the show ended in September) on The Brooklyn Rail site (i.e. The Bruces' home turf) which set me thinking there is no way of hijacking the discourse there, you just get filtered out - even when you're on an awesome high profile site like WWR!

Actually I had a similar experience a couple of months ago - I recklessly volunteered to review a recently published artist's monograph (coffee-table league tome) for a site associated with the publishing house, but even with my insider there - it was rejected as too critical. Although I certainly never intended it to be - I actually know the senior arist slightly. I came to praise his dogged career. But hey those insider power plays are something else - cut down in the interests of someone else's agenda. It was no big deal, but a reminder how people do try and control the conversation, even to quite pointless ends.

[Jimminy]

Everyone's a cricket.