This one’s for the robots

Laurie Fendrich, of Hofstra, wonders in her Chronicle blog why oh why doesn’t anybody pipe up when she writes about art?

Pontormo doesn't give a fuck if you don't get him.

First of all, I’d love it if anyone other than Russian oligarchs selling Viagra and Rolexes commented on my posts. So there’s that. Even the motley crew of learneds commenting on Fendrich — happily reprising the nonsense they got from Art Appreciation for Non-Majors 25 years ago — is better than nothing.

Part of the problem is no doubt the nonsense “subjective appreciation” thing that Fendrich labors under, viz.:

Unlike words, or mathematical formulae, or scientific studies, most art automatically prompts one of three reactions: I like it, I don’t like it, or I’m indifferent to it.

Really? I would have thought that being assessed by international markets, an academic-industrial complex, a museum industry and a non-institutional cohort — assessing people by reputation, tribal allegiance, and *shock* quality! — would give some credibility to art as a *sigh* discursive practice.

On the other hand, if one blogs about experiences limited to one’s studio — such as the awesomeness of Williamsburg Cinnabar Green, or how badass it is that Philip Guston almost uses rabattement in The Desert — it pretty much shuts down the ability of any one but you to comment. Especially when your target audience is aspiring adjunct professors of English. Talk about art & media, art & capital, art & information, etc., and maybe we’ll find some points of entry.

For me anyway, the point of the practice is kind of beyond making things intelligible/accessible. Nobody’s work should flay itself for all comers. Did we give up the right to opacity with our union dues?

For all this hot air, forgive me dear Reader. The Chronicle‘s real problem is technical; I was going to post all this in the Chronicle comments section, but it was buggy…
–
ds