Then there appears to be no disagreement.

I’ve been so freakingly busy, I have not had time to say some of the things I wished to say or thought about, so before I dash off onto another of my Missions, and now that the morning’s drawing is done, I can get in something I would have added yesterday — context.

The word “criticism,” all by itself tends to evoke only the populist definitions, but as soon as we put an adjectival modifier anywhere near it, like “art criticism,” “social criticism,” “political criticism,” etc any educated person knows we are probably not only talking about ridicule or insults but critical analysis. While it’s true that some art, etc critics do merely insult or ridicule, they also thereby certainly demonstrate themselves as merely unprofessional.

I’ve noted that when you don’t like (or like) something, you give reasons, and the reasons can be evaluated. Opinions are opinions and are presented as such.

Yes, I’m preaching to the choir, probably, but still, I just wanted to go on record as a little more nuanced and and understanding about criticism. I know I read art criticism regularly. I’m of the opinion that art critics are positioned to advance or retard the arts, and so I always look for social responsibility in their work.

So “parasitic and decadent” need not apply!

Yes, albeit a rather specialized, parasitic and decadent one.

Great idea–I’ll get to it.

What about children’s art then? Should we think of it as a category, like grown-up art, or should we think in terms of individuals?

Why not both?

What about children’s art then? Should we think of it as a category, like grown-up art, or should we think in terms of individuals?

Just like art, for that matter. . .

Seriously Steve, I know Vilayanur S. Ramachandran and I tried to make an interview appointment with him when I was in San Diego. I should have tried harder, but I had jet lag. Next time . . .