Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
I, Toaster Follow-Up: Artist Thomas Thwaites Responds
In response to my article about his project to create a toaster from scratch, artist Thomas Thwaites sent me the following email:
I'm writing to address the misinterpretation (misrepresentation?) of my project in your article. Obviously projects of this nature are open to interpretation and the toaster project has indeed received both negative and positive comments in various blogs by various people, but an article by a professional writer that makes so many innacurate assumptions as yours is something that I feel I must take issue with.
Firstly you assume that I don't know about the famous essay 'I Pencil', by Leonard Read. I'm not entirely sure what led you to this assumption. As an undergraduate I studied microeconomics and environmental economics at University College London. I found the economics components I did (admittedly just two) to be amongst the most rewarding parts of my BSc., and certainly served in part as inspiration for my later project. In fact I write about the (now legendary) bet between the 'Limits to Growth' environmentalist Ehrlich and the economist Julian Simon in a book I've written to accompany the exhibition. I use it in relation to a point about steadily increasing material wealth. I also quote Adam Smith on the production of pins. Your claim that 'the miracle of modern capitalism is lost on Thwaites' is incorrect.
Furthermore your statement that I see my project as a 'as a condemnation of trade, technology, and mutually beneficial exchange' you assert follows from the following extract from the project website:
'The point at which it stopped being possible for us to make the things that surround us is long past...This faintly ridiculous quest to make a toaster from the 'ground up' serves as a vehicle through which questions about economics, helplessness and life as a consumer can be investigated.'
I fail to see how your statement follows from what I had written (which incidentally I rewrote some time ago if you'd care to have another look). To make a toaster from scratch is 'faintly ridiculous', and indeed impossible without devoting a lifetime to the task. Investigating questions is very different from condemnation.
There are numerous other points where your article completely misses the point of my project. I'm not sure if you deliberately misinterpreted what my project is about to fit in with a notion you had for your article, or if perhaps your assumptions about what 'artists' have to say took over from your reason, or if the fact that it appeared on one 'eco-arts website' whipped up unexamined prejudices and led you to write your frankly wrong and unthoughtful article. Or of course it could be all because my website does not explain every facet of the project but assumes some critical thought on behalf of the reader (the irony of making an electric toaster in a way that disavows the infrastructure on which electric toasters depend on was clearly lost on you).
Please update your article now you have been informed of a little more about the project. I think as it stands it does a discredit to your publication. I am very happy to answer any further questions you may have.
Yours Sincerely,
Thomas Thwaites
|6.26.09 @ 2:39PM|#
I have thoroughly examined my prejudices and am comfortable with every one of them.
Fluffy|6.26.09 @ 2:41PM|#
'The point at which it stopped being possible for us to make the things that surround us is long past...This faintly ridiculous quest to make a toaster from the 'ground up' serves as a vehicle through which questions about economics, helplessness and life as a consumer can be investigated.'
I fail to see how your statement follows from what I had written (which incidentally I rewrote some time ago if you'd care to have another look). To make a toaster from scratch is 'faintly ridiculous', and indeed impossible without devoting a lifetime to the task. Investigating questions is very different from condemnation.
He's right here - there is nothing in his quote that definitively
states that he is condemning our "helplessness as consumers".
At the same time, however, I would say that it's likely that 999
times out of 1000, if someone writes the words "serves as a vehicle
through which questions about economics, helplessness and life as a
consumer can be investigated" about their art project, it's code
for "Hey guys, check out my hackneyed observations on the evils of
late capitalism!" Since he's employing the jargon of douchebags, he
should forgive you for mistaking him for a douchebag.
|6.26.09 @ 2:45PM|#
if perhaps your assumptions about what 'artists' have to say took over from your reason,
Drink!
|6.26.09 @ 2:50PM|#
Someone needs to release an album called "The Jargon of
Douchebags."
With all the lyrics in passive voice.
I'd do it, but I worry about hipsters thinking it's ironic or
something and liking it.
Bill|6.26.09 @ 2:53PM|#
"the irony of making an electric toaster in a way that
disavows the infrastructure on which electric toasters depend on
was clearly lost on you"
Yeah, me too. I totally missed that witty, biting "irony."
Reminds me of the British artist who shit in a tin can and then
some museum in London bought it for something like 30,000
Pounds.
|6.26.09 @ 2:55PM|#
Fluffy,
I'm totally with you, but at the same time it's not his fault that
the art world demands that he use the jargon of douchebags. When I
talk to other archivists, I use a jargon impenetrable to most
people. Artists do the same. While his statement is to "the public"
99.9% of the time that just means other artists or art
people.
It seems like a failure of communication from both parties. Perhaps
something that could have been solved with an interview with the
artist.
Eric S.|6.26.09 @ 2:59PM|#
His entire response is nothing but an unexamined prejudice . . . i.e., I am an artist, you are not, thus you are not sophisticated enough to understand what I meant. It also reeks of victimology.
|6.26.09 @ 3:01PM|#
I gotta say, I admire and respect Radley's work more than pretty much any other journalist on the intertubes, but I think Thwaites has a legitimate gripe. We all lay an egg every once in a while... I think Radley might just have to take his lumps on this one.
|6.26.09 @ 3:02PM|#
I would have thought he would be greatful for the coverage at
all. Reason routinely covers interesting projects and critiques
them fairly, and often less than fawningly. If I were an artist (or
a freelance economist, or whatever-the-fuck this dude is) I would
be much happier with being taken seriously, even if the review was
less than favorable than I would be getting a doggie-yum-yum pat on
the head from someone within my own intellectually isolated
circle.
There's no such thing as bad publicity, dude, don't be a
douche.
|6.26.09 @ 3:09PM|#
It seems to me that with art, if you have to explain it, you've
failed.
This phenomenon is not limited to art, of course. As canny senior
law partner once told me "If you're explaining, you're losing."
GILMORE|6.26.09 @ 3:14PM|#
To the substance of the guy's point... yeah, he's got a legit
gripe. And yeah, artists often speak a language that reeks "touchy
douche". Any criticism or commentary is somehow 'misinformed' in
their view, when they don't always do the best job communicating in
the first place. Dude should have been more congenial and thankful
for the attention in the first place. You put something out there,
people talk about it. Help them along, don't be a nanny poo poo
about it.
As a side note, I once did an 'art project' taking random photos of
Artist Statements (cards next to an artists exibit "explaining"
their M.O. Then I took random photos of art, and asked people to
try and match them. The joke was that none of them had anything to
do with one another. It was funny for me at least.
The Angry Optimist|6.26.09 @ 3:15PM|#
if it's supposed to be about "investigative questions", why does
he beg one of those questions and use the word "helpless" in the
description?
Sorry, but the word "helpless" made me think the very same thng:
capitalism is empowering, not disabling, and if you're starting on
the premise that consumers are "helpless", well, yeah, we're going
to assume you carry a concomitant attitude that backs up that
descriptor.
GILMORE|6.26.09 @ 3:15PM|#
R C Dean | June 26, 2009, 3:09pm | #
It seems to me that with art, if you have to explain it, you've
failed.
I agree
|6.26.09 @ 3:16PM|#
You know, one thing that torques me about post-modern and
post-post-modern art is that it tends to attack--when it's doing
anything--consumers and capitalism. Yet the artists don't seem
interested in dealing with the people with real power, those in
government. I find that odd.
I'm just speaking generally--I haven't RTFA.
Shannon Love|6.26.09 @ 3:20PM|#
It looks like Balko did misinterpret the artist's intent but to be fair, artist travel in vast thundering herds of intellectual clones. It's not Balko's fault he didn't spot the mustang when he mustang looked and sounded like a clone.
Fascitis Necrotizante|6.26.09 @ 3:22PM|#
Thomas Thhhhhwwwwaitess!!! (flecks spittle on all other commenters, a la Men in Tights
|6.26.09 @ 3:24PM|#
My respect for Thomas Thwaites just increased, without in any way diminishing my respect for Radley Balko.
JB|6.26.09 @ 3:26PM|#
Wow. Everyone has to drink before the commentary even
starts!
The whiny letter was worth it just for that.
I'd do it, but I worry about hipsters thinking it's ironic or
something and liking it.
lol. too true.
Musta missed a "/" in there on the italics. Crap.
Crap...in a can.
The Angry Optimist|6.26.09 @ 3:31PM|#
until Thwaites clarifies what the word "helplessness" means in
the statement, I'm not inclined to say that Radley misinterpreted
anything. Thwaites obfuscated his own purpose by implying that
capitalism makes us helpless.
So, Thomas, if you're still out there, what did you mean by
"helplessness" anyway?
|6.26.09 @ 3:31PM|#
I think Radley might just have to take his lumps on this
one.
I think Radley did -- he presented Thwaites' response without
snark.
That said, Thwaites didn't make much of an effort to distinguish
himself from a standard artistic statist -- unless taking on such
camouflage was a way to not offend the statist twits who attend art
shows.
Warty|6.26.09 @ 3:36PM|#
Now if he had just put the toaster in a tank of piss, then it would be true art.
|6.26.09 @ 3:37PM|#
Thwaites got more than a fair shake. Balko didn't have to post the mans lengthy, meandering, whiney rebuttal. I only wish I hadn't read it. itoaster isn't nearly interesting enough to get so worked up over, although I suppose if I had spent my friday's microwaving metal in the name of art instead of something useful, (like wandering from bar to bar trying to get laid) I'd start to get a bit testy too.
|6.26.09 @ 3:39PM|#
An excellent retort. Balko gets a point for the take-down, but looses two on the reversal.
|6.26.09 @ 3:40PM|#
Yet the artists don't seem interested in dealing with the
people with real power, those in government.
Oh, they take on people in the government. But only half of them.
The 2004 Whitney Biennial was one long whine about OMG TEH WAR!!!
And I snidely say this as both a fan of modern art and someone who
opposed the Iraq war utterly.
When you say things I agree with in a manner I find so douchey that
I have to object, you're being pretty fucking douchey.
|6.26.09 @ 3:41PM|#
Now if he had just put the toaster in a tank of piss, then
it would be true art.
You have to go all the way these days, warty. He'd have to fill a
bathtub with urine, bath in it, and then have someone chuck his
homemade fucking toaster into the tub while plugged in. I picture
him listening to the smiths, wilst doing so. Now THAT would be
fucking art.
jasno|6.26.09 @ 3:43PM|#
Investigating questions is very different from condemnation.
I eagerly await the day that genetic engineering advances to the
point where we can prove that the gene responsible for
libertarianism is also connected to the trait of confusing analysis
with condemnation, and, further, condemnation with a call for
regulation.
For example, there's a big difference between examining the
problems of recreational drug use, and calling for government
sponsored prohibition on that behavior. But I think that
distinction seems to be lost on many libertarians. Not all, but
certainly many.
Eric S.|6.26.09 @ 3:44PM|#
Honest question. What are you folks seeing in Mr. Thwaites' response that has merit? Other than the "Don't assume b/c it makes . . . " I see nothing.
Fluffy|6.26.09 @ 3:45PM|#
And now that I think about it, all I can say about the entire
toaster project itself is:
I can't make an electric toaster from scratch, but I can glue a
potholder to a metal pole, jam a piece of bread on the other end of
the pole, and hold it over a fire.
So am I a helpless consumer or not?
|6.26.09 @ 3:48PM|#
the gene responsible for libertarianism is also connected to
the trait of confusing analysis with condemnation
ironic also that Thwaites himself exhibits this error when he
assumes that Balko condemns him, when, in fact, he merely analyzes
his work.
|6.26.09 @ 3:49PM|#
I eagerly await the day that genetic engineering advances to
the point where we can prove that the gene responsible for
libertarianism is also connected to the trait of confusing analysis
with condemnation, and, further, condemnation with a call for
regulation.
Next up, jasno complains about those blinkered ideologue medical
professionals who go about insisting that HIV causes AIDS.
alan|6.26.09 @ 3:50PM|#
SugarFree | June 26, 2009, 2:39pm | #
I have thoroughly examined my prejudices and am comfortable with
every one of them.
I thought the same of myself, but learned the hard way when I saw a
group of guys in cut off jeans line dancing to the awful eighties
country tune 'Just a Swinging' that somethings are just annoying
when done seperately that can make me pretty much vomit when put
together.
Fluffy|6.26.09 @ 3:50PM|#
I eagerly await the day that genetic engineering advances to
the point where we can prove that the gene responsible for
libertarianism is also connected to the trait of confusing analysis
with condemnation, and, further, condemnation with a call for
regulation.
For example, there's a big difference between examining the
problems of recreational drug use, and calling for government
sponsored prohibition on that behavior. But I think that
distinction seems to be lost on many libertarians. Not all, but
certainly many.
Well, this is why in my first post in this thread I said, "Thwaites
is correct, but..."
My experience has been that in the overwhelming majority of cases,
certain varieties of analysis actually always are "condemnation
with an eye to regulation". And that the reason it's not presented
that way is almost always bad faith on the part of the
"analyzer".
It is true that intellectual charity requires that we not make the
kind of presumption Radley made here. But at the same time, it
requires extraordinary patience and good will to not leap
to the conclusion that someone who uses certain code words is using
them in the way that made them code words in the first place.
|6.26.09 @ 3:53PM|#
alan,
I have to say that I agree. Instances of compounded prejudices can
be overwhelming, even for the self-examined.
robc|6.26.09 @ 3:55PM|#
For example, there's a big difference between examining the
problems of recreational drug use, and calling for government
sponsored prohibition on that behavior. But I think that
distinction seems to be lost on many libertarians. Not all, but
certainly many.
I cant think of any. That seems to be a clearly separated amongst
libertarians. As is understanding that the fact that something is
immoral doesnt mean it should be illegal.
Neither the right nor the left can figure that one out.
Sandy|6.26.09 @ 3:57PM|#
This seems a more succinct statement of what the hell Thwaites's
point is:
So are toasters ridiculous? It depends on the scale at which you look. Looking close up, a desire (for toast) and the fulfilment of that desire is totally reasonable. Perhaps the majority of human activity can be reduced to a desire to make life more comfortable for ourselves, and has thus far led to being able to buy a toaster for £3.99 [among other achievements]. But looking at toasters in relation to global industry, at a moment in time when the effects of our industry are no longer trivial compared to the insignificant when our, they seem unreasonable. I think our position is ambiguous - the scale of industry involved in making a toaster [etc.] is ridiculous but at the same time the chain of discoveries and small technological developments that occurred along the way make it entirely reasonable.
I.E., "I really believe capitalism and big things are evil and
smelly and poopoo but I like cheap toasters and am afraid to say
what I really would like to believe because then it will be clear
I'm an idiot but if I'm smart and just admit it all makes sense
I'll never get tenure anywhere nor will I get laid by hippies."
|6.26.09 @ 4:06PM|#
And I'm going to call bullshit on his faux outrage as well. He
wants to be seen as "Examining questions" not as having presupposed
the answers, because that would mean his work is derivative,
hackneyed, and ordinary. As an artist, that's just too much to
bear. But he reveals his biases much to clearly to avoid being
pinned like a bug to a notecard.
This faintly ridiculous quest to make a toaster from the
'ground up' serves as a vehicle through which questions about
economics, helplessness and life as a consumer can be
investigated.
His self-depreciating tone belies the utter seriousness with which
he obviously takes himself. Posing questions about "economics,
helplessness and life as a consumer" assumes that they are related
in some way - that, in fact, the concepts may be so intertwined as
to merit artistic portrayal. So much so, that it's shocking that
people such as Balko don't just get it without detailed
explanation from him. Contrast his question to one that poses
questions about "economics, choice and life as a consumer". His
premise equates life as a consumer with helplessness and fingers
economics as the culprit. Just because he's acting coy and hurt
doesn't mean he's not full of shit.
|6.26.09 @ 4:07PM|#
It looks like Balko did misinterpret the artist's
intent
So, the next question is, how good a job did the artist do of
communicating his intent?
And, for you philosophy majors, is the artist's intent even
relevant to their art? Who gives a fuck what the artist intended?
Isn't what matters what happens in the viewer's head when
"confronted" with the art?
|6.26.09 @ 4:11PM|#
is the artist's intent even relevant to their
art?
Successful artists would probably agree that it isn't. Art that
only communicates the artists intent is usually too boring to sell,
unless the government is the customer.
Christopher Monnier|6.26.09 @ 4:17PM|#
I think Radley is a little guilty of confirmation bias in this
case...interpreting some vague language to mean what he had assumed
was an attempted indictment of capitalism based on his preconceived
notion that artists are statists.
That being said, Thwaites' use of overly-flowerly language is
partly to blame for Radley's misinterpretation of Thwaites'
intent.
In the end, this seem like much ado about nothing...a mere
miscommuncation resolved within a day or two due to the miracle of
the internet.
But not all is lost...this sub-minor hubbub did at least generate
some buzz for Thwaites' project, which seems to have been the point
the endeavor.
|6.26.09 @ 4:17PM|#
Thwaites has a point that is at least worth considering.
Of course, he presents it in a defensive, pissy, "gotcha!" sort of
way that really bugs me. In addition, he implies that Radley lacks
the capacity for "critical thought" due to an interpretation of a
project that, by his own admission, is "open to
interpretation".
Also, as others have pointed out, I think Radley was right that
Thwaites' language reveals a predisposition toward interpreting the
project as an indictment of our ultra-specialized societies. The
word "helpless" doesn't exactly carry positive connotations.
alan|6.26.09 @ 4:34PM|#
For example, there's a big difference between examining the
problems of recreational drug use, and calling for government
sponsored prohibition on that behavior. But I think that
distinction seems to be lost on many libertarians. Not all, but
certainly many.
In reality what would you have to say on the subject of substance
abuse that wasn't as boring and brain tumor inducing and repeated a
thousand times over than your typical PSA? You have to take in
account that the libertarian your speaking to is just
annoyed in the general sense that doesn't take a special set
of DNA to set off.
alan|6.26.09 @ 4:36PM|#
you're speaking to -- damn you English language, so overly indulgent in homonyms you are.
|6.26.09 @ 4:40PM|#
Firstly you assume that I don't know about the famous essay
'I Pencil', by Leonard Read.
I just scanned the article again, and didn't see Radley assuming he
didn't know about that essay. Rather, I saw Radley discussing why
Thwaite's derivative project compares poorly to the original.
Having Thwaites go on and on about how deeply he studied the pencil
project only confirms the unoriginality of his toaster
project.
Following that factual error up with a pretentious survey of econ
classes in London makes it all too easy to dismiss his entire
letter as the work product of a snarky twat.
skr|6.26.09 @ 5:21PM|#
I don't really see anything wrong with Radley's article. I think
it is pretty much on point with the information that is present on
the artist's website. Of course, "that's not what he really meant
if only Radley had read all the unavailable writings that will be
included in the show". A moving target so typical of the bankrupt
philosophy that passes as artistic discourse these days.
To democratsarefascists who wrote "Why are "artists" all such
whiny, little doofusses?"
I'm an artist in L.A. Come over here and let me punch you in the
face. Either that or change all to most, because that would
unfortunately be true.
To the "if you have to explain it you failed" crowd, you are
absolutely right. Which is why PoMo (or PoPoMo) conceptual art
sucks donkey dick.
I spent more than enough time in art school to know that most of
the work created in art school is total amateur crap at which most
seasoned artists just shake their heads. The fact that he is going
for his MA just means that he has to write a bunch of bullshit
doublespeak in order to please a bunch of ivory tower intellectuals
who sit and masturbate to Baudrillard, Derrida, and Foucault all
day long.
|6.26.09 @ 6:34PM|#
[flecks spittle on all other commenters]
Backs away from keyboard and heads to washroom.
hmm|6.26.09 @ 8:34PM|#
I looked through his whole website. Any critically thinking
person could have come to similar conclusions with just observing
the information provided on his site and using such information as
a basis for context of the toaster project.
I realized a long time ago that when someone takes the time to
correct you (especially in print) and the person states that there
are numerous other things wrong and then fails to enumerate said
things, they are fishing for something or have nothing.
I have thoroughly examined my prejudices and I thoroughly
embrace every one of them.
|6.28.09 @ 1:04PM|#
Have to agree with Thwaites on this one.
Art is not an argument. Thwaites did not make an argument for Balko
to refute. Balko decided to try to refute it anyway, and because he
couldn't find an argument there, he made one up, and then refuted
it.
"If you have to explain it you have failed" is complete BS. If you
have to explain it to *everybody*, you have failed. If you have to
explain it to just one guy, then the failure is on that one guy,
not you. "If you have to explain it only to a certain subset of
libertarians who hate this type of art" -- which is all that's been
demonstrated so far -- well ... you all can make the call on who's
failed.
|6.28.09 @ 1:08PM|#
And the tone of many of the comments on here is just nauseating. Tribalism run amok.
jtuf|6.28.09 @ 1:26PM|#
I did the same thing last year, but with wooden nick-naks. It's amazing what you can carve from the branches you prune on the typical suburban property. Now a toster, that is a unrealistic. Common, is he really going to find ore in his back yard.
|6.29.09 @ 5:09AM|#
Man, I'm real sorry I started reading the comments. It's an echo chamber, and someone's got the volume knob at max.
|6.29.09 @ 5:43AM|#
Second (fourth?) the tribalism/echo chamber charge.
I also think the "if you have to explain it" critique is ironic in
this case, because the problem seems to be that he started trying
to explain it in the first place. According to Radko himself,
"Read's essay and Thwaites's experiment ... have lessons for the
current economic crisis." Sounds to me as if Radko, if left to his
own devices and not misled by Thwaites's explanation of the project
(or conceivably his own biases regarding artists' political views),
would have concluded that it was an effective investigation of some
questions about economics.
|6.29.09 @ 5:55AM|#
Also just want to add that I think it was faulty for Radko to base his interpretation of the project as a condemnation almost wholly on Thwaites's use of the word "helpless". Art is often founded upon paradox. I think it's this apparent contradiction--that capitalism gives us so much power and freedom, and yet at the same time makes us totally dependent upon it for everything we want--that interests Thwaites. The project isn't about how capitalism makes us helpless instead of powerful; it's about how capitalism does both at the same time.
Michael Foody|6.29.09 @ 9:01AM|#
I think the rebuttal has merits. Radko definitely seemed to assume that this project was anti-capitalist simply because artists in general tend to be anti-capitalist. He naively assumed that the artist was unfamiliar with I pencil even though that was very unlikely given the nature of the project. Finally yes capitalism since it depends on the independent actions of so many does make the individual helpless in a sense. The individual, as an individual, is incapable of doing many of the simplest things that we take for granted. The relative ease with which we can accomplish things like making a toaster through trade does lead to relatively more wastefulness as well since it is so easy to take for granted how much goes into the products we consume. It is a blessing to be sure, but one that ought be counted. But even here Thwaites comments on these subjects were measured.
Granite|6.29.09 @ 12:47PM|#
RC - I went back and looked, and short of a subtle 'however',
there's no claim that he wasn't aware of it.
The pedagoguical (sp?) style of Balko's article definitely left me
with the IMPRESSION that he'd never heard of I, Pencil, something I
think was intentional.
I'll stand by Thwaites on the point too... Trying the make a
toaster from scratch IS ridiculous, and we ARE helpless to make one
on our own. It begs the question of whether or not we are better
for this massed interdependence (which should come back a
resounding yes).
Sandy|6.29.09 @ 1:31PM|#
Actually the only begging the question (as opposed to eliding
the question: geez, even UKians can't write English) that occurs
here is when Thwaites presumes that toasters are "simple." Their
function is simple, but they have never been simple. The lone
person can indeed make the kind of toaster that was used up until
the 20th century: long tongs used to hold the bread over
fire.
Clearly, the Brits need more experience with abusive boarding
school buggery so they can learn how toast is really made.
|6.29.09 @ 6:46PM|#
I eagerly await the day that genetic engineering advances to the
point where we can prove that the gene responsible for LEFTISM is
also connected to the trait of confusing analysis with
condemnation, and, further, condemnation with a call for
regulation.
Fixed.
|6.30.09 @ 11:43AM|#
Wow. Thwaites totally owned Balko, and look at all the
commenters curl into a defensive crouch. Ha ha, let's put the word
"artist" in scare quotes! That'll learn him!
It's hard to pick my favorite comment from this sea of pissing and
moaning, but probably honors goes to this:
"It seems to me that with art, if you have to explain it, you've
failed."
This statement is, of course, indistinguishable from saying, "If I
misinterpret or fail to understand your art, you've failed." Kudos
to you, R C Dean: your opinions are self-justifying.
|7.7.09 @ 6:57PM|#
Anyone who really thinks a toaster is simple has never attempted
to repair one. Same for virtually everything we use from waking to
sleeping. Every time I try to think of an exception I fail. The
premise of this project is one I have been interested in (and tried
to explain with little success) most of my life. I was unaware of
Read's essay or Thwaite's project until Radley's article. THAT's
why I read Reason greedily every month. THIS is why I visit the web
site. Thanks, all, for the fun.
Speaking of fail... the really successful artist doesn't have to
explain his art, because art snobs pay other art snobs to explain
it for the artist. All he has to do is smile and nod.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245