You know, Franklin, I realized that awards were bullshit at my eighth grade graduation, upon receiving the award for top academic excellence. I looked at the piece of paper in my lap and lo! It was a piece of paper.
Awards are alibis bestowed upon people to whom we do not accord money, attention, consideration, respect, kinship or affection. Fretting over the absence of awards in one's career--ANYONE'S career--is wasted energy.
You know that, and I know that, but what of all the people who don't know about the existence of the Art Critic Alliance and how they can relieve themselves from a long career of professional-emotional blackmail by ditching AICA and obtaining an ACA press credential? Not nearly enough, and this is a good occasion to apprise them.
Franklin, I totally sympathize, but at least AICA-USA is acting in a way which speaks clearly, even if that disreputably contradicts its official statements. I suppose those responsible cannot help themselves or see no need to bother, let alone risk retribution for being "reactionary." My mother had a saying for such people: "No pueden con su condición," which roughly translates as "they cannot help acting like what they are." And no, I expect they will not condemn Hamas, unless the "right" people do. Sad.
But you know, if AICA will put a non-critic in a critic's place, it might as well be more innovative and edgy, more out-of-the-box. By now, what it's doing is too tame and routine. It should have gone further out, like getting Megan Rapinoe to give the lecture--I mean, doesn't she criticize everything? Or, if AICA felt obliged to use someone more artsy, it could always have gone for Hunter Biden.
Rapinoe and Biden are white, hence not being considered. Though, mark my words, when they do finally invite a white person to deliver this lecture, he, she, or singular-they will be gay, trans, or non-binary.
I knew the white thing didn't fit the desired profile, but I figured there could be special dispensations in selected cases. Still, all things considered, they should have gone for Oprah.
Presumably, the reasoning goes something like "She (or whoever) doesn't have to be a critic, just someone who gets the basic concept and has read some critics' work, or is open to that. She (in this case) could just talk about her concept of art criticism and how she thinks it should be done or not done and by whom. It's not about art per se anyway, so there's no need to fixate on that aspect. The key thing is the sociopolitical aspect and having that be irreproachably au courant. The rest is details."
Of course, people who should not be doing something could decline doing it, but if it's handed to them on a platter, it's not realistic to expect that. Obviously, those doing the offering are responsible.
Wait, you’re upset after only 12 years?!?
lol
She has a point. You should be prepared to wait at least 40 years, like Moses.
Thank you for drawing people's attention to this, Franklin. Doing some really necessary work!
You know, Franklin, I realized that awards were bullshit at my eighth grade graduation, upon receiving the award for top academic excellence. I looked at the piece of paper in my lap and lo! It was a piece of paper.
Awards are alibis bestowed upon people to whom we do not accord money, attention, consideration, respect, kinship or affection. Fretting over the absence of awards in one's career--ANYONE'S career--is wasted energy.
You know that, and I know that, but what of all the people who don't know about the existence of the Art Critic Alliance and how they can relieve themselves from a long career of professional-emotional blackmail by ditching AICA and obtaining an ACA press credential? Not nearly enough, and this is a good occasion to apprise them.
Indeed, this is a pressing concern for so many!
450 AICA members in the USA alone! 450 too many IMO.
Why would we expect substance from fashion?
Because when fashion presumes to be substantial, it shouldn't be let off the hook.
Waste of time.
Perhaps, but the perps don't deserve to get away with BS as if everyone bought it.
Franklin, I totally sympathize, but at least AICA-USA is acting in a way which speaks clearly, even if that disreputably contradicts its official statements. I suppose those responsible cannot help themselves or see no need to bother, let alone risk retribution for being "reactionary." My mother had a saying for such people: "No pueden con su condición," which roughly translates as "they cannot help acting like what they are." And no, I expect they will not condemn Hamas, unless the "right" people do. Sad.
But you know, if AICA will put a non-critic in a critic's place, it might as well be more innovative and edgy, more out-of-the-box. By now, what it's doing is too tame and routine. It should have gone further out, like getting Megan Rapinoe to give the lecture--I mean, doesn't she criticize everything? Or, if AICA felt obliged to use someone more artsy, it could always have gone for Hunter Biden.
Rapinoe and Biden are white, hence not being considered. Though, mark my words, when they do finally invite a white person to deliver this lecture, he, she, or singular-they will be gay, trans, or non-binary.
I knew the white thing didn't fit the desired profile, but I figured there could be special dispensations in selected cases. Still, all things considered, they should have gone for Oprah.
And Franklin, "seminal" is apparently artspeak for "obligatory."
This is the only part of this situation that actively annoys me. People who write professionally should notice that this is a mistake.
It's a buzzword, like so many others thrown about like confetti, and the target audience either doesn't think twice about it or finds it appropriate.
Presumably, the reasoning goes something like "She (or whoever) doesn't have to be a critic, just someone who gets the basic concept and has read some critics' work, or is open to that. She (in this case) could just talk about her concept of art criticism and how she thinks it should be done or not done and by whom. It's not about art per se anyway, so there's no need to fixate on that aspect. The key thing is the sociopolitical aspect and having that be irreproachably au courant. The rest is details."
Of course, people who should not be doing something could decline doing it, but if it's handed to them on a platter, it's not realistic to expect that. Obviously, those doing the offering are responsible.
Well, gotta give Cassel Oliver credit: she's got the official-art-person look down pat. Total uniform.