[NetBehaviour] Bad review[s]

Patrick Lichty pl at voyd.com
Tue Sep 15 21:59:03 CEST 2015

Probably the same thing as when a colleague tells me my writing is often
better than my art.  However, in my case there was some takeaway.  Moldy
figs indeedŠ

From:  Paul Hertz <ignotus at gmail.com>
Reply-To:  NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
<netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
Date:  Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 8:43 PM
To:  NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
<netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
Subject:  [NetBehaviour] Bad review[s]

So what do you do when the Distinguished Critic writes a newspaper review
where he says one of your prints (in a curated gallery group show) that it
"shows neither intellectual nor aesthetic spark."?

Probably nothing, except post to NetBehaviour. All publicity is good
publicity, right?

Nevertheless, I am astounded that the moldy fig style of journalism still
persists, where the critic's opinion is the subject matter of the critique.
I suppose it's more entertaining than opening the work up to the reader's

-- Paul

-----   |(*,+,#,=)(#,=,*,+)(=,#,+,*)(+,*,=,#)|   ---
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20150915/e6d639f4/attachment.htm>

More information about the NetBehaviour mailing list