…which would have been fine—if he did. And you know how it is when someone somehow fails to recognize. You must find someone to help you—put them down—preferably someone with a PhD in art witticism.

From: K
To: Cold Bacon
Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 10:13 AM
Subject:

let me tell you a few things about "curt":

first of all, everyone who signs off letters or emails "peace" should be taken out back and shot. i was doing that when i was, like, thirteen, and pretending to be a hippie, right down to the flowery hats. at least i listened to jefferson airplane, so i was borderline legit. but i am 25 now, so i sign my emails "best" "regards" "thanks" "love" or nothing, like normal people. curt should too. even if he listens to jefferson airplane.

second of all- having only looked at the first page- anyone who doesn't like conceptual art is too stupid to understand it. because once you understand it, you pretty much agree that painting is dead, and that conceptual gestures are what killed it. i know that saying that "painting is dead" is no longer fashionable, and there are still some new paintings that have impact- but those that do, in my opinion, are borrowing from conceptual art anyway (viz. damien hirst's paintings, which look like polkadot wallpaper). one can have a populist objection to conceptual art, which i think is legitimate, or a class objection (as unviewable, unpreservable, or made only for critics), but really, you can't have an aesthetic objection- and i bet dollars to doughnuts that curt's critique has nothing to do with populism, or class, or accessibility, and everything to do with "these artists think they're so smart but really they are so pretentious." of course he's neglecting the fact that web art could, by most definitions, be considered conceptual as well... but that's fuel for a longer rant.

third- anyone who thinks putting parentheses in a title to turn one word into two, thereby demonstrating how fucking postmodern they are, should be taken out back and shot. curt's example: "hype(er text)." most common example for people who've read too much beaudrillard/gender theory/foucault: "(re)imagining the fill-in-the-blank." parentheses do not a fresh idea make.

in short: his site is slick, but slick does not necessarily mean good, or even thoughtful. it means technically proficient. should you be offended if he blew you off? i don't think so. i'd have sent him to "onlycolor", though, and not your architecture essay- i am probably being dismissive, having not read any of his stuff, but one gathers a certain amount of information from what people choose to show you first- and in this case i've gathered enough to know that curt would be a real drip to meet at a MoMA opening. if you really want to connect with him, though, link him to a project, rather than text. something tells me curt's not ready for content.

feel better?

K

More Romance