Screenshot AFC. Please note that the screen shot of Noah Fischer’s interview is unrelated to this post. It is however well worth the read.
Writer and blogger Catherine Spaeth discovered ArtLurker editor Thomas Hollingworth plagiarized some of her work a week and a half ago and is not happy about it. I’m a bit of a link Nazi myself so can’t say I blame her, though I think her description of magazines who don’t fire these writers as failing “to live up to their insider credibility in hiring inexperienced and unethical writers” speaks to a different issue. Frankly, I find the idea that a critic needs to be entrenched in the art world to be effective a little offensive. The last thing the art world needs is a further whittling down of who is qualified enough to speak about the profession. To be fair though, I’m guessing Spaeth’s repeated mention of insider importance is the result of annoyance inspired by M: The New York Art World, a third party publisher of her plagiarized work, whose self description reads “an insider’s source for credible news”. Insider indeed.
Meanwhile I spoke to Thomas Hollingworth about the subject last week, who expressed regret for his mistake. I asked him why ArtLurker had removed the post without a public apology and he explained that since the blog was made up of many contributors he felt they should not suffer for his mistakes. Given that the blog was founded by Hollingworth and the standard procedure of magazines and professional publishing houses is to publicly address issues of plagiarism I don’t see how this line of logic makes any sense. Even though the piece wasn’t written for the blog it was republished there. It seems best to just place a post acknowledging the misstep and move on.
At this point though I can’t imagine that will happen. Spaeth has written three sanctimonious posts on the subject complaining that her prose were bastardized, calling Hollingworth “the plagiarist”, and even taking issue with Artlurker’s verbatim and attributed reposting of Michael Kimmelman’s writing. (As long as a link is given who cares. The evil world of the Associated Press here.) Should Hollingworth address the issue (and he should), he now has three posts worth of shots taken at him to put aside plus a few shaky Spaeth positions on larger issues to discuss.
{ 80 comments }
Is it sanctimonious to call a plagiarist a plagiarist? There is a caricature of a sanctimonius “Charles” on the first post, not exactly prideful in its so-called moral superiority.
I did need to call this out as an issue, it clearly is one. My biggest concern is that blogs are only just beginning to be taken seriously as a form of arts writing, and I’m very pleased that you stand behind the established practice of a public acknowledgment – but notice that you are a professional blogger. It took someone with an invested interest in established practice to stand behind the issue in this way.
As for “insiders,” I’m in agreement with a statement made by Ed Winkleman recently (this is buried in a recent comment thread somewhere), that there are no insiders, only relationships. And so I do think that something like what Douglas McClennan (Nov. 20th post at ARTicles) describes as a Slow Journalism movement, similar to the Slow Food movement, is applicable on the web. Know and care about where things come from, let the unique consistency of a voice be a contribution to the flavor of a meal. It is an editor’s job to be this cook, not just the writer’s.
Thanks for the boing boing link! I’m not exactly asking for a million dollars, just basic ethics from a community where there is no community. A very shaky Spaeth position.
Is it sanctimonious to call a plagiarist a plagiarist? There is a caricature of a sanctimonius “Charles” on the first post, not exactly prideful in its so-called moral superiority.
I did need to call this out as an issue, it clearly is one. My biggest concern is that blogs are only just beginning to be taken seriously as a form of arts writing, and I’m very pleased that you stand behind the established practice of a public acknowledgment – but notice that you are a professional blogger. It took someone with an invested interest in established practice to stand behind the issue in this way.
As for “insiders,” I’m in agreement with a statement made by Ed Winkleman recently (this is buried in a recent comment thread somewhere), that there are no insiders, only relationships. And so I do think that something like what Douglas McClennan (Nov. 20th post at ARTicles) describes as a Slow Journalism movement, similar to the Slow Food movement, is applicable on the web. Know and care about where things come from, let the unique consistency of a voice be a contribution to the flavor of a meal. It is an editor’s job to be this cook, not just the writer’s.
Thanks for the boing boing link! I’m not exactly asking for a million dollars, just basic ethics from a community where there is no community. A very shaky Spaeth position.
It’s absolutely not sanctimonious to call a plagiarist a plagiarist. This post was not written to suggest you shouldn’t have called him out. My issue has to do with particular aspects of how it was done. For example, I think it was unnecessary to complain about how Hollingworth bastardized your words. He’s plagiarizing of course it’s second rate. Also, since he hasn’t given you credit, it’s not like he’s making you look bad.
As for the blog quoting other critics such as Kimmelman I don’t have a problem with it at all. If someone thinks my material is valuable enough to republish it I’m happy so long as I receive a link. The link to full content is what generates revenue, not some stupid fee for its use. The largest issue web professionals struggle with today are large media outlets who write about images and stories as though they found it themselves. Gawker needs to throw out a few more source links.
It’s absolutely not sanctimonious to call a plagiarist a plagiarist. This post was not written to suggest you shouldn’t have called him out. My issue has to do with particular aspects of how it was done. For example, I think it was unnecessary to complain about how Hollingworth bastardized your words. He’s plagiarizing of course it’s second rate. Also, since he hasn’t given you credit, it’s not like he’s making you look bad.
As for the blog quoting other critics such as Kimmelman I don’t have a problem with it at all. If someone thinks my material is valuable enough to republish it I’m happy so long as I receive a link. The link to full content is what generates revenue, not some stupid fee for its use. The largest issue web professionals struggle with today are large media outlets who write about images and stories as though they found it themselves. Gawker needs to throw out a few more source links.
PS: For clarity, I have never suggested that anyone be fired, in fact my response to him was something like “How could you put me in a position to ask that you never write, when it is something I so much love to do?”
But do take special note of the fact that M:NYC did not take down the 3rd-generation-down but still plagiarized article. I did find it frustrating that an essay for Whitehot appeared on his site so quickly after the plagiarism was made public, and that Kimmelman’s “yes” likewise appeared as an endorsement – unbeknownst to Kimmelman. Finally, I did ask Hollingworth to publicly respond, inviting him to follow Karen Justl’s post on my blog, but he declined.
More finally I hope that people will read Noah Fischer’s beautiful interview, and not see your web grab as an illustration of plagiarism. I am eager to move beyond this issue, and Noah’s beautiful sculptures definitely bring me back to the kind of dialogue I would like to encourage in the blogosphere.
PS: For clarity, I have never suggested that anyone be fired, in fact my response to him was something like “How could you put me in a position to ask that you never write, when it is something I so much love to do?”
But do take special note of the fact that M:NYC did not take down the 3rd-generation-down but still plagiarized article. I did find it frustrating that an essay for Whitehot appeared on his site so quickly after the plagiarism was made public, and that Kimmelman’s “yes” likewise appeared as an endorsement – unbeknownst to Kimmelman. Finally, I did ask Hollingworth to publicly respond, inviting him to follow Karen Justl’s post on my blog, but he declined.
More finally I hope that people will read Noah Fischer’s beautiful interview, and not see your web grab as an illustration of plagiarism. I am eager to move beyond this issue, and Noah’s beautiful sculptures definitely bring me back to the kind of dialogue I would like to encourage in the blogosphere.
That clarification might be useful to note in your post as well. I had interpreted your words that way because the post on plagiarism suggested the publishing world take a similar zero tolerance stand as is done in academia. I would assume I’m not the only one who read it that way.
I would agree that Hollingworth’s handling of this situation has its own problems.
I updated my post to indicate Noah’s interview is unrelated, though I will note that your comment reads as though that “kind of dialogue” doesn’t happen elsewhere in the blogosphere.
That clarification might be useful to note in your post as well. I had interpreted your words that way because the post on plagiarism suggested the publishing world take a similar zero tolerance stand as is done in academia. I would assume I’m not the only one who read it that way.
I would agree that Hollingworth’s handling of this situation has its own problems.
I updated my post to indicate Noah’s interview is unrelated, though I will note that your comment reads as though that “kind of dialogue” doesn’t happen elsewhere in the blogosphere.
I do think it takes a hard position, and I do say beyond any forgiveness I can offer. No question about that. But we are talking about a freelancer, how do you fire a freelancer? You have to make everything public and hold everyone, not just the writer, accountable for their actions. As you discovered, this guy will not publicly acknowledge what he has done in the established manner.
As for altering my words to somehow reflect upon my reputation, that is so not the point. The “shaky” idea is that strong negative criticism can be emptied of its bite and stroked into a positive review by a plagiarizer. This defeats the point of criticism and creates of it a sheer vehicle of the market. It’s a larger issue that has nothing to do with the people involved, but for the fact that actors are required for the scene.
I am not comfortable in the tone of voice that I have had to use, this whole issue was so unwelcome! I’m glad you referred people to Noah’s interview, thanks. – Catherine
I do think it takes a hard position, and I do say beyond any forgiveness I can offer. No question about that. But we are talking about a freelancer, how do you fire a freelancer? You have to make everything public and hold everyone, not just the writer, accountable for their actions. As you discovered, this guy will not publicly acknowledge what he has done in the established manner.
As for altering my words to somehow reflect upon my reputation, that is so not the point. The “shaky” idea is that strong negative criticism can be emptied of its bite and stroked into a positive review by a plagiarizer. This defeats the point of criticism and creates of it a sheer vehicle of the market. It’s a larger issue that has nothing to do with the people involved, but for the fact that actors are required for the scene.
I am not comfortable in the tone of voice that I have had to use, this whole issue was so unwelcome! I’m glad you referred people to Noah’s interview, thanks. – Catherine
It is true that the real problem here is that your words were twisted into a positive review when your thoughts were more critical. Had all your points in these comments been articulated in the post I probably wouldn’t have brought it up.
For the record the “shaky” idea I was referring to specifically has to do with this:
I take this to mean that you’re not in favor of quoting by blogs, and I think that’s dubious ground to say the least. The rest of “shaky” has to do with what I still feel is a rather hard position. Applying the word elsewhere is to do so in error.
It is true that the real problem here is that your words were twisted into a positive review when your thoughts were more critical. Had all your points in these comments been articulated in the post I probably wouldn’t have brought it up.
For the record the “shaky” idea I was referring to specifically has to do with this:
I take this to mean that you’re not in favor of quoting by blogs, and I think that’s dubious ground to say the least. The rest of “shaky” has to do with what I still feel is a rather hard position. Applying the word elsewhere is to do so in error.
One other point:
I think that’s a little inaccurate. Blogging as a publication model has been taken seriously for some time. There are simply fewer web writers in the field of the arts to be taken seriously.
One other point:
I think that’s a little inaccurate. Blogging as a publication model has been taken seriously for some time. There are simply fewer web writers in the field of the arts to be taken seriously.
Yes, but the title of my post was “Art Criticism, Plagiarism and the Web.” Quite specific.
Yes, but the title of my post was “Art Criticism, Plagiarism and the Web.” Quite specific.
What point are you refuting?
What point are you refuting?
“art criticism failedâ€
So says Catherine Spaeth (see comment number 10) on November 6, 2008.
That is a general statement and it clearly indicates the art historian’s position. Obviously plagiarism is wrong and Hollingworth is an idiot, but Spaeth should be honest about how she really feels about art criticism in general. She stated that “art criticism failed†three days prior to her post on Hollingworth on November 9, 2008.
“art criticism failedâ€
So says Catherine Spaeth (see comment number 10) on November 6, 2008.
That is a general statement and it clearly indicates the art historian’s position. Obviously plagiarism is wrong and Hollingworth is an idiot, but Spaeth should be honest about how she really feels about art criticism in general. She stated that “art criticism failed†three days prior to her post on Hollingworth on November 9, 2008.
Two cranky old men are sitting at a lunch counter, finishing their meal. One says, “The food in this place is terrible!” And the other says, “Yeah, and the portions are so small!”
There are hundreds of ways to squander your credibility as a writer. Plagiarism is one of the worst. But I have followed this story with bewilderment as I look over Spaeth’s assertions and find one howler after another – is this really what Miami’s would-be intelligentsia aspire to? Silent bewilderment, I might add, until reading the comments at the link provided by Eric. “Within the artworld, how often is ‘too academic’ proffered as a legitimate rebuttal to sound thought?” I dunno, every Tuesday after breakfast? Sound thinking is hardly the exclusive province of academics. In fact, experience teaches me that they often have no truck with one another. Mark Twain observed as much.
I have been having my own misgivings about art criticism lately so I sympahtize with Spaeth up to a point. But she has failed to disentangle her larger beefs with the culture of art criticism from a clear-cut act of plagiarism that would be just as bad if it had preserved the original author’s opinion. This willy-nilly melding of somewhat parallel ideas marks her work in general, even the bit that got stolen. You ask what point she’s refuting, but you might as well be kicking a hill of Jello.
Two cranky old men are sitting at a lunch counter, finishing their meal. One says, “The food in this place is terrible!” And the other says, “Yeah, and the portions are so small!”
There are hundreds of ways to squander your credibility as a writer. Plagiarism is one of the worst. But I have followed this story with bewilderment as I look over Spaeth’s assertions and find one howler after another – is this really what Miami’s would-be intelligentsia aspire to? Silent bewilderment, I might add, until reading the comments at the link provided by Eric. “Within the artworld, how often is ‘too academic’ proffered as a legitimate rebuttal to sound thought?” I dunno, every Tuesday after breakfast? Sound thinking is hardly the exclusive province of academics. In fact, experience teaches me that they often have no truck with one another. Mark Twain observed as much.
I have been having my own misgivings about art criticism lately so I sympahtize with Spaeth up to a point. But she has failed to disentangle her larger beefs with the culture of art criticism from a clear-cut act of plagiarism that would be just as bad if it had preserved the original author’s opinion. This willy-nilly melding of somewhat parallel ideas marks her work in general, even the bit that got stolen. You ask what point she’s refuting, but you might as well be kicking a hill of Jello.
The point I was refuting is that I was ever speaking of blogs in general, which I’m not interested in apart from the splogging i write about. That is so obvious I don’t need to refute it.
As far as the relationship between plagiarism and the failure of art criticism, John Rockwell’s recent post “Old Saws Revisited” at ARTicles is in agreement with what happens to criticism in the fodder machine . The characters in my own story are perfect examples of artworld advertising/real estate,, a hisotry for which I provide by citing john Coplans. “Artlurker” is all “your ad here” and M: The New York Art World calls itself a “non-profit,” but its paid members are galleries. It’s a shell game. To suggest that a plagiarist – “lying liars in the media.” as Justl put it, might show up in such a context is not really so shaky. In fact, it’s proven.
The point I was refuting is that I was ever speaking of blogs in general, which I’m not interested in apart from the splogging i write about. That is so obvious I don’t need to refute it.
As far as the relationship between plagiarism and the failure of art criticism, John Rockwell’s recent post “Old Saws Revisited” at ARTicles is in agreement with what happens to criticism in the fodder machine . The characters in my own story are perfect examples of artworld advertising/real estate,, a hisotry for which I provide by citing john Coplans. “Artlurker” is all “your ad here” and M: The New York Art World calls itself a “non-profit,” but its paid members are galleries. It’s a shell game. To suggest that a plagiarist – “lying liars in the media.” as Justl put it, might show up in such a context is not really so shaky. In fact, it’s proven.
@Catherine. No offense, but you’re out of your mind. You break the most basic rule of writing — that you specify what you’re talking about — and then complain that I’m too stupid to get it. What’s more of course I needed clarification: Who reads a response to a comment outside the overall thrust of the discussion as an assertion that the digression was the real point of interest in the first place? That logic makes no sense whatsoever.
As for the rest of this, I (again) need further clarification. What happens to criticism in the fodder machine? What is a shell game? What is the context that plagiarists won’t show up in?
Overall, I think one example of plagiarism makes a weak point for why criticism has “failed” as a whole.
Finally, stop using the word shaky in contexts other than the one it was applied to. It’s being used in the same way you recycled the word “insider” in your posts, and that doesn’t look good.
@Catherine. No offense, but you’re out of your mind. You break the most basic rule of writing — that you specify what you’re talking about — and then complain that I’m too stupid to get it. What’s more of course I needed clarification: Who reads a response to a comment outside the overall thrust of the discussion as an assertion that the digression was the real point of interest in the first place? That logic makes no sense whatsoever.
As for the rest of this, I (again) need further clarification. What happens to criticism in the fodder machine? What is a shell game? What is the context that plagiarists won’t show up in?
Overall, I think one example of plagiarism makes a weak point for why criticism has “failed” as a whole.
Finally, stop using the word shaky in contexts other than the one it was applied to. It’s being used in the same way you recycled the word “insider” in your posts, and that doesn’t look good.
I would assume that we all agree that the plagiaristic acts committed by Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin do not invalidate the work being done by history professors across the world. Hollingworth’s plagiarism does not disqualify the entire field of art criticism. The conflation of the two was not appreciated by me. I have never plagiarized anyone in my writing and the same goes for many other art critics.
I would assume that we all agree that the plagiaristic acts committed by Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin do not invalidate the work being done by history professors across the world. Hollingworth’s plagiarism does not disqualify the entire field of art criticism. The conflation of the two was not appreciated by me. I have never plagiarized anyone in my writing and the same goes for many other art critics.
Has Catherine left the building?
Has Catherine left the building?
My final comment: When I say “conflation of the two” I am refering to this specific blog entry:
http://catherinesarttours.blogspot.com/2008/11/plagiarism-art-criticism-and-web.html
My final comment: When I say “conflation of the two” I am refering to this specific blog entry:
http://catherinesarttours.blogspot.com/2008/11/plagiarism-art-criticism-and-web.html
Eric, to conflate plagiarism and art criticism on the whole is absurd, and I am not doing that – and to Franklins’s “Jello” (as well as Paddy’s suggestion that my retorts on “shaky” have spun out of control)I propose the danger of plagiarism for art criticism – emphasis on criticism – in a market driven world. Based on what has occurred. Alert.
As for the shell game, I do think there is some fishy business about art non-profits that are close to the msrket. It’s tax evasion, for one. (Go for it, Franklin.) But more seriously, Brendon MacInness actually hung up on me when, after trying to sell his magazine to me as a non-profit that believes in art criticism (emphasis on criticism), actually hung up on me when I informed him of the plagiarized article and asked him to take that article down. As testimony to his “integrity,” it remains today. It is interesting to compare this to the legacy of such non-profits as PS1, Artists Space, White Columns, Art in General, etc.. I find it a shame to see a tendency in this new generation of non-profits to pass themselves off as independent in their views.
Paddy, I never claimed that you were stupid. You are baiting. This is your post, you posted on an essay about art criticism and the web, and then condemned the position for not being responsible for a history of blogs in general, which was never the interest. Take some responsibility for it.
As for the jump from plagiarism to criticism failing as a whole, Eric made that faulty leap from an entirely different conversation on Artworld Salon. Only someone with a need to feel persecuted would make such a leap.
I appreciate the NAJP site, and I point to it often, for a level of awareness that anyone who writes about art could benefit from. The fodder machine I led you to earlier was the film industry, which merely by adding an exclamation point changes already positive criticism into an ecstatic rave. As for the rest, feel free to read the Coplans interview, in the article that your post is about, and respond. I’m done here.
Eric, to conflate plagiarism and art criticism on the whole is absurd, and I am not doing that – and to Franklins’s “Jello” (as well as Paddy’s suggestion that my retorts on “shaky” have spun out of control)I propose the danger of plagiarism for art criticism – emphasis on criticism – in a market driven world. Based on what has occurred. Alert.
As for the shell game, I do think there is some fishy business about art non-profits that are close to the msrket. It’s tax evasion, for one. (Go for it, Franklin.) But more seriously, Brendon MacInness actually hung up on me when, after trying to sell his magazine to me as a non-profit that believes in art criticism (emphasis on criticism), actually hung up on me when I informed him of the plagiarized article and asked him to take that article down. As testimony to his “integrity,” it remains today. It is interesting to compare this to the legacy of such non-profits as PS1, Artists Space, White Columns, Art in General, etc.. I find it a shame to see a tendency in this new generation of non-profits to pass themselves off as independent in their views.
Paddy, I never claimed that you were stupid. You are baiting. This is your post, you posted on an essay about art criticism and the web, and then condemned the position for not being responsible for a history of blogs in general, which was never the interest. Take some responsibility for it.
As for the jump from plagiarism to criticism failing as a whole, Eric made that faulty leap from an entirely different conversation on Artworld Salon. Only someone with a need to feel persecuted would make such a leap.
I appreciate the NAJP site, and I point to it often, for a level of awareness that anyone who writes about art could benefit from. The fodder machine I led you to earlier was the film industry, which merely by adding an exclamation point changes already positive criticism into an ecstatic rave. As for the rest, feel free to read the Coplans interview, in the article that your post is about, and respond. I’m done here.
I don’t know what your psychological make-up is Catherine but I don’t appreciate your dimestore psychologizing especially about someone you never met before and never will meet. As Paddy was trying to say, all I can do is work with the EXACT words that you type into the little comment boxes.
“art criticism failedâ€
I did not recontextualize YOUR statement. I even included the original link so readers could decide on their own. So please spare me the personal attacks and false accusations. Your original statement “art criticism failedâ€, stands on its own.
And in fact, Mr. Kaplan over at artworldsalon, where your comment first appeared, stated the following, “But has this thread become a moratorium on the failure of art criticism? An interesting topic, to be sure, but not the original one.” The original posting had to do with the election of Obama and had nothing to do with the value of art criticism. Who is taking things out of context? Your academic credentials aren’t in psychology are they?
I don’t know what your psychological make-up is Catherine but I don’t appreciate your dimestore psychologizing especially about someone you never met before and never will meet. As Paddy was trying to say, all I can do is work with the EXACT words that you type into the little comment boxes.
“art criticism failedâ€
I did not recontextualize YOUR statement. I even included the original link so readers could decide on their own. So please spare me the personal attacks and false accusations. Your original statement “art criticism failedâ€, stands on its own.
And in fact, Mr. Kaplan over at artworldsalon, where your comment first appeared, stated the following, “But has this thread become a moratorium on the failure of art criticism? An interesting topic, to be sure, but not the original one.” The original posting had to do with the election of Obama and had nothing to do with the value of art criticism. Who is taking things out of context? Your academic credentials aren’t in psychology are they?
“Only someone with a need to feel persecuted would make such a leap.”
I am really really glad I am not one of your students Catherine. Does every student who disagrees with you have a persecution complex? Puhlease!
“Only someone with a need to feel persecuted would make such a leap.”
I am really really glad I am not one of your students Catherine. Does every student who disagrees with you have a persecution complex? Puhlease!
Psychology 101:
Catherine Spaeth:
Uptight and paranoid academic (probably doesn’t have tenure) who enters the blogsphere and communicates with one and all with an air of condescension and superiority but gets frustrated because her academic credentials don’t carry as much weight in cyberspace as they do in her lecture hall, where students accept her opinions blindly and most likely regurgitate them back to her in their papers so they can get a good grade. I am sorry you gave me a P for persecution complex on my report card, but we all have to defend our ideas in cyberspace, that is how blogs work.
Psychology 101:
Catherine Spaeth:
Uptight and paranoid academic (probably doesn’t have tenure) who enters the blogsphere and communicates with one and all with an air of condescension and superiority but gets frustrated because her academic credentials don’t carry as much weight in cyberspace as they do in her lecture hall, where students accept her opinions blindly and most likely regurgitate them back to her in their papers so they can get a good grade. I am sorry you gave me a P for persecution complex on my report card, but we all have to defend our ideas in cyberspace, that is how blogs work.
I really don’t understand why pointing out an inaccurate statement in a comment thread continues to be interpreted as the position that said comment was the focus of another post. That jump makes no sense, and I’m not going to take responsibility for a thread of logic no one but you could have predicted.
You owe Eric an apology. If you don’t think your thoughts on the failure of criticism are relevant to the discussion just explain why. There’s no need to accuse the person who brought it up as having a need to feel persecuted.
Overall, the assumption that we all know what you’re talking about isn’t helping move this discussion forward. Provide a link. Explain what you think is the relevant information in the sources you cite. Failing to do so leaves people with the impression you think you’re better than them. Notably, when I mentioned earlier in the thread that your tone implied you were single handedly encouraging smart dialogue that didn’t exist elsewhere in the blogosphere, you didn’t respond.
I really don’t understand why pointing out an inaccurate statement in a comment thread continues to be interpreted as the position that said comment was the focus of another post. That jump makes no sense, and I’m not going to take responsibility for a thread of logic no one but you could have predicted.
You owe Eric an apology. If you don’t think your thoughts on the failure of criticism are relevant to the discussion just explain why. There’s no need to accuse the person who brought it up as having a need to feel persecuted.
Overall, the assumption that we all know what you’re talking about isn’t helping move this discussion forward. Provide a link. Explain what you think is the relevant information in the sources you cite. Failing to do so leaves people with the impression you think you’re better than them. Notably, when I mentioned earlier in the thread that your tone implied you were single handedly encouraging smart dialogue that didn’t exist elsewhere in the blogosphere, you didn’t respond.
Eric, as my only connection to plagiarism and art criticism at large is that the tolerance of plagiarism creates the danger that negative criticism is robbed of its bite and sabotaged by the market – and can we please take it for granted the the difficulties of art criticism in relation to the market have been a long-standing issue? – how is it that a) the existence of plagiarism supports an argument for why art criticism has failed, and b) this would somehow be an accusation against your profession and not, in fact, a defense of it? What recently occurred is to my mind a symptom, a symptom that has a very specific context, but as what I am calling a symptom, it also has a history and reach that extends beyond itself. You can disagree with that, but do not mistake the claim for a condemnation of what you do.
Eric, as my only connection to plagiarism and art criticism at large is that the tolerance of plagiarism creates the danger that negative criticism is robbed of its bite and sabotaged by the market – and can we please take it for granted the the difficulties of art criticism in relation to the market have been a long-standing issue? – how is it that a) the existence of plagiarism supports an argument for why art criticism has failed, and b) this would somehow be an accusation against your profession and not, in fact, a defense of it? What recently occurred is to my mind a symptom, a symptom that has a very specific context, but as what I am calling a symptom, it also has a history and reach that extends beyond itself. You can disagree with that, but do not mistake the claim for a condemnation of what you do.
“You owe Eric an apology.”
I’m waiting.
“You owe Eric an apology.”
I’m waiting.
I think its going around in all directions, Paddy.
I think its going around in all directions, Paddy.
If I’ve been unclear or you feel I’m being condescending cite the example and say so. It’s no big deal.
No further comments will be approved until Eric receives an apology.
If I’ve been unclear or you feel I’m being condescending cite the example and say so. It’s no big deal.
No further comments will be approved until Eric receives an apology.
Coming in late on this discussion. Catherine Spaeth, please get over yourself. Three posts on your blog about this peccadillo you discovered and all your words here in Johnson’s comments are just too much. Publishing “the plagiarist’s” picture under the blog title “_____ the Plagiarist,” it’s just melodramatic overkill.
I’m not sure that what you’re griping about (and griping, and griping…) is even properly plagiarism. As you describe it, a blogger used some of your words but “sapped your writing of all its critical bite in order to provide comparatively glowing fodder.”
That’s two different issues.
If he changed your meaning but attributed the words to you, that’s one thing. Using your words verbatim and passing them off as his is another. It seems like the sins somewhat cancel each other out. I’m sure you can lecture me endlessly about why this is not so.
Cribbing others’ prose is wrong. Unfortunately the Internet is still an intellectual Wild West, and people do all kinds of things on the fly that won’t live up to your ethical standards as a print writer. You are the schoolmaster insisting on decorum while others are ducking from the hail of bullets as the bad guys ride into town. Point out your grievance, move on. No one cares how important you think you are.
I am just kidding Catherine. I would never expect you to apologize.
But at least you started to answer my original request.
“art criticism failedâ€
That originally came up in a comment thread over at artworldsalon. It bugged me when I read it but Mr. Kaplan, one of the moderators over there, reprimanded you for getting off point. So that is why I didn’t bring it up in the original context. Kapeesh?
Now we both agree that plagiarism is wery wery bad. Hollingworth was an idiot, unethical, etc.
But what exactly do you mean by this, “it also has a history and reach that extends beyond itself.” Is the ‘it’ in that sentence art criticism? You leave me guessing because of your vagueness. If the ‘it’ is art criticism, then what do you think are the correct parameters of art criticism? What would an over-extension beyond these parameters exactly be? Are there certain topics or subject areas that are verboten to art critics? Why has art criticism failed? I’ll ask you one more time. In the original context (comment #10 over at artworldsalon) you were certainly not referring to a specific thing.
Coming in late on this discussion. Catherine Spaeth, please get over yourself. Three posts on your blog about this peccadillo you discovered and all your words here in Johnson’s comments are just too much. Publishing “the plagiarist’s” picture under the blog title “_____ the Plagiarist,” it’s just melodramatic overkill.
I’m not sure that what you’re griping about (and griping, and griping…) is even properly plagiarism. As you describe it, a blogger used some of your words but “sapped your writing of all its critical bite in order to provide comparatively glowing fodder.”
That’s two different issues.
If he changed your meaning but attributed the words to you, that’s one thing. Using your words verbatim and passing them off as his is another. It seems like the sins somewhat cancel each other out. I’m sure you can lecture me endlessly about why this is not so.
Cribbing others’ prose is wrong. Unfortunately the Internet is still an intellectual Wild West, and people do all kinds of things on the fly that won’t live up to your ethical standards as a print writer. You are the schoolmaster insisting on decorum while others are ducking from the hail of bullets as the bad guys ride into town. Point out your grievance, move on. No one cares how important you think you are.
I am just kidding Catherine. I would never expect you to apologize.
But at least you started to answer my original request.
“art criticism failedâ€
That originally came up in a comment thread over at artworldsalon. It bugged me when I read it but Mr. Kaplan, one of the moderators over there, reprimanded you for getting off point. So that is why I didn’t bring it up in the original context. Kapeesh?
Now we both agree that plagiarism is wery wery bad. Hollingworth was an idiot, unethical, etc.
But what exactly do you mean by this, “it also has a history and reach that extends beyond itself.” Is the ‘it’ in that sentence art criticism? You leave me guessing because of your vagueness. If the ‘it’ is art criticism, then what do you think are the correct parameters of art criticism? What would an over-extension beyond these parameters exactly be? Are there certain topics or subject areas that are verboten to art critics? Why has art criticism failed? I’ll ask you one more time. In the original context (comment #10 over at artworldsalon) you were certainly not referring to a specific thing.
Thank you Eric, I don’t mind apologizing for us both appearing in an apparent face-off, as I don’t regard it as real. “as what I am calling a symptom, it” refers to the symptom, this one event of plagiarism.
As far as Steve Kaplan’s post, Eric, his comment was off, I just let it go, but if you read the questions at the end of the original post, you will see that I am well inside of them and certainly Obama’s reputation for erudition has relevancy – I was being asked what I hoped for.
Comment #!0, then: I was placing two apparent opposites beside each other – art journalism and academic writing, and asking for erudition. I didn’t continue but here: The failure of art criticism is that neither art journalism nore acedmic writing are, in my opinion, adequate. Academic writing holds, I believe, a more critical edge – it’s not afraid to chase after those symptoms, for ex., – that I would like to see more of in the newspaper. On the newspaper side, I like the so-called ‘first-response’ – the immediacy of the work and the currency of the “local vernacular”, which blogs are so awesome for.
I don’t really think of myself as an academic, though I may seem that way to most – I love teaching but I hate grading papers, I don’t have a Phd., don’t want one, but two Masters degrees, Cultural Studies and Art History. I write with both. But like you Eric I’ve always wanted to write for a public audience, and I do. Some people like my writing,some don’t, that’s the web, that’s the world. But my writing is a lot more accessible than a lot of Artforum has been, so the call for erudition might fall somewhere between the NYT and Artforum. But that’s just me, what I want, you have your own hopes for your writing and you have made it clear that they are different than mine..
Tom Moody, Paddy posted it, the tone was set for the start as a trashfest on sanctimony, so welcome to the crowd – you’re just the last to arrive at the ‘party.” By the third post I was eager to move past it. I am more sick of it than you, believe me…but welcome to the shooting match. Do you really think I’m naive about that?! (And what was that rather sanctimonious comment you made about not posting on other people’s sites?)
BTW, don’t forget Karen Justl, who sent me the picture – this was really her research project on liars who lie in the media. It is wrong to credit me with all those posts, Karen really kicked this whole thing into gear and is coming at it from her own perspective.
And Tom Moody, it was classic plagiarism. I don’t think anyone has real confusion about that. To see how its done, and from my post: Here’s a little one: “Although such shamanistic practices are not new, the presentation now of a ‘world healer’ by a globalizing art institution is, at the very least, curious” (Hollingworth) and the original sentence: “Such shamanistic practices are not new, but the presentation of a world healer by a globalizing art institution that everyone either ignores or loves to hate is, at the very least, curious.”
Thank you Eric, I don’t mind apologizing for us both appearing in an apparent face-off, as I don’t regard it as real. “as what I am calling a symptom, it” refers to the symptom, this one event of plagiarism.
As far as Steve Kaplan’s post, Eric, his comment was off, I just let it go, but if you read the questions at the end of the original post, you will see that I am well inside of them and certainly Obama’s reputation for erudition has relevancy – I was being asked what I hoped for.
Comment #!0, then: I was placing two apparent opposites beside each other – art journalism and academic writing, and asking for erudition. I didn’t continue but here: The failure of art criticism is that neither art journalism nore acedmic writing are, in my opinion, adequate. Academic writing holds, I believe, a more critical edge – it’s not afraid to chase after those symptoms, for ex., – that I would like to see more of in the newspaper. On the newspaper side, I like the so-called ‘first-response’ – the immediacy of the work and the currency of the “local vernacular”, which blogs are so awesome for.
I don’t really think of myself as an academic, though I may seem that way to most – I love teaching but I hate grading papers, I don’t have a Phd., don’t want one, but two Masters degrees, Cultural Studies and Art History. I write with both. But like you Eric I’ve always wanted to write for a public audience, and I do. Some people like my writing,some don’t, that’s the web, that’s the world. But my writing is a lot more accessible than a lot of Artforum has been, so the call for erudition might fall somewhere between the NYT and Artforum. But that’s just me, what I want, you have your own hopes for your writing and you have made it clear that they are different than mine..
Tom Moody, Paddy posted it, the tone was set for the start as a trashfest on sanctimony, so welcome to the crowd – you’re just the last to arrive at the ‘party.” By the third post I was eager to move past it. I am more sick of it than you, believe me…but welcome to the shooting match. Do you really think I’m naive about that?! (And what was that rather sanctimonious comment you made about not posting on other people’s sites?)
BTW, don’t forget Karen Justl, who sent me the picture – this was really her research project on liars who lie in the media. It is wrong to credit me with all those posts, Karen really kicked this whole thing into gear and is coming at it from her own perspective.
And Tom Moody, it was classic plagiarism. I don’t think anyone has real confusion about that. To see how its done, and from my post: Here’s a little one: “Although such shamanistic practices are not new, the presentation now of a ‘world healer’ by a globalizing art institution is, at the very least, curious” (Hollingworth) and the original sentence: “Such shamanistic practices are not new, but the presentation of a world healer by a globalizing art institution that everyone either ignores or loves to hate is, at the very least, curious.”
Catherine,
My comment about not posting in others’ comments was: “Not everyone wants me barging onto their threads with my take no prisoners style.”
If that’s how you define sanctimony, cool.
Catherine,
My comment about not posting in others’ comments was: “Not everyone wants me barging onto their threads with my take no prisoners style.”
If that’s how you define sanctimony, cool.
“But that’s just me, what I want, you have your own hopes for your writing and you have made it clear that they are different than mine..(sic)â€
I am not really sure what you are talking about. At no point did I define what art writing or art criticism should be. Obviously you feel the need to oppose me, but again, I did not tell you at any point in this thread what my ‘hopes’ for writing are. You have tried to differentiate between Academic writing and things on the ‘newspaper side’. These categories you invented reveal your prejudices about art writing.
“But that’s just me, what I want, you have your own hopes for your writing and you have made it clear that they are different than mine..(sic)â€
I am not really sure what you are talking about. At no point did I define what art writing or art criticism should be. Obviously you feel the need to oppose me, but again, I did not tell you at any point in this thread what my ‘hopes’ for writing are. You have tried to differentiate between Academic writing and things on the ‘newspaper side’. These categories you invented reveal your prejudices about art writing.
There are entire books about it Eric, you might read the State Of Art Criticism, edited by Elkins, 2007. I certainly do recall being called too academic, later withdrawn as a low blow, but something was showing in the taking up of that position. And you have written on Jonathan T.D. Neil’s blog in very clear terms about what you think criticism does/should be. That was you, wasn’t it? Why the withdrawal into the sanctimonius protection of this thread?
I do reveal my “prejudices,” that is a sure thing.
There are entire books about it Eric, you might read the State Of Art Criticism, edited by Elkins, 2007. I certainly do recall being called too academic, later withdrawn as a low blow, but something was showing in the taking up of that position. And you have written on Jonathan T.D. Neil’s blog in very clear terms about what you think criticism does/should be. That was you, wasn’t it? Why the withdrawal into the sanctimonius protection of this thread?
I do reveal my “prejudices,” that is a sure thing.
All this back and forth about newspaper vs academic criticism seems terribly off topic (and dated). A blogger swiped another blogger’s prose, the swipee went nuclear, end of story.
Elkins’ pre-blogospheric ideas about criticism got hashed out on Sally McKay’s and my pages over four years ago. Talk about late to the party.
http://www.digitalmediatree.com/tommoody/?28786
All this back and forth about newspaper vs academic criticism seems terribly off topic (and dated). A blogger swiped another blogger’s prose, the swipee went nuclear, end of story.
Elkins’ pre-blogospheric ideas about criticism got hashed out on Sally McKay’s and my pages over four years ago. Talk about late to the party.
http://www.digitalmediatree.com/tommoody/?28786
More Elkins discussion, for the newbie blogger:
http://www.iconoduel.org/archives/2004/07/000344_more_cribbed_elkins.php
http://www.digitalmediatree.com/tommoody/comment/28760/
More Elkins discussion, for the newbie blogger:
http://www.iconoduel.org/archives/2004/07/000344_more_cribbed_elkins.php
http://www.digitalmediatree.com/tommoody/comment/28760/
What are these things called books Catherine? Please enlighten me.
Regarding the alleged superior criticality of academic writing…as if academic writing doesn’t have its own prejudices and weaknesses. The scary thing about the books that academics pump out every year is that their prejudices and blindspots, the nepotism and favoritism, become codified in the LOC archives. As if academics don’t focus on seemingly random groups of artists when they are constructing their histories of various ‘movements’. I find your politicking to be disengenuous at best. Where are your critical comments about academic writing? I criticize all types of art writing on my blog.
Art critics and bloggers preserve the work of artists and bring attention to artists
that are completely ignored by the ‘newspaper side’ and the academics. (Someday in the near future children will ask their parents, “Hey ma what’s a newspaper?”)
Academic writing often leaves out more than it includes and as a reader, I often find myself saying, “Nice thesis douchebag but what is really going on here?” Don’t you think it is insidious how so many academic art history books leave so many artists out of their tidy little frameworks?
Elkins is deluded. I read him back in 2004, specifically his book “What Happened to Art Criticism” (2003) and in that book he expresses quite clearly his bitterness about how obscure and ignored academic art writing is by substituting academic writing for art criticism in his little thesis. He says things like; “Art criticism is massively produced and massively ignored.” “Art criticism is diaphonous: it’s like a veil, floating in the breeze of cultural conversations and never quite settling anywhere.” “Critics seldom know who reads their work beyond the gallerists who commision it and the artists about whom they write: and often that reading public is ghostly precisely because it does not exist.”
He sure loves colons doesn’t he? He was definetely pissed about the amazon rankings of his own books. Compare the amazon rankings of any of his books with the number of people who visit popular art blogs daily and who read art critics in print at the NYT, New Yorker, etc.
This lovely exchange began when you got personal Catherine, when you had the gall to call me names simply because I dared to question your statement. I will gladly reaffirm everything I said here in any other context. I can understand why you would insult artfagcity by saying “Why the withdrawal into the sanctimonius protection of this thread?”, but believe me, Paddy and Tom and Franklin would be all over me if I came across in the pompous and condescending manner that you have.
[redaction]
What are these things called books Catherine? Please enlighten me.
Regarding the alleged superior criticality of academic writing…as if academic writing doesn’t have its own prejudices and weaknesses. The scary thing about the books that academics pump out every year is that their prejudices and blindspots, the nepotism and favoritism, become codified in the LOC archives. As if academics don’t focus on seemingly random groups of artists when they are constructing their histories of various ‘movements’. I find your politicking to be disengenuous at best. Where are your critical comments about academic writing? I criticize all types of art writing on my blog.
Art critics and bloggers preserve the work of artists and bring attention to artists
that are completely ignored by the ‘newspaper side’ and the academics. (Someday in the near future children will ask their parents, “Hey ma what’s a newspaper?”)
Academic writing often leaves out more than it includes and as a reader, I often find myself saying, “Nice thesis douchebag but what is really going on here?” Don’t you think it is insidious how so many academic art history books leave so many artists out of their tidy little frameworks?
Elkins is deluded. I read him back in 2004, specifically his book “What Happened to Art Criticism” (2003) and in that book he expresses quite clearly his bitterness about how obscure and ignored academic art writing is by substituting academic writing for art criticism in his little thesis. He says things like; “Art criticism is massively produced and massively ignored.” “Art criticism is diaphonous: it’s like a veil, floating in the breeze of cultural conversations and never quite settling anywhere.” “Critics seldom know who reads their work beyond the gallerists who commision it and the artists about whom they write: and often that reading public is ghostly precisely because it does not exist.”
He sure loves colons doesn’t he? He was definetely pissed about the amazon rankings of his own books. Compare the amazon rankings of any of his books with the number of people who visit popular art blogs daily and who read art critics in print at the NYT, New Yorker, etc.
This lovely exchange began when you got personal Catherine, when you had the gall to call me names simply because I dared to question your statement. I will gladly reaffirm everything I said here in any other context. I can understand why you would insult artfagcity by saying “Why the withdrawal into the sanctimonius protection of this thread?”, but believe me, Paddy and Tom and Franklin would be all over me if I came across in the pompous and condescending manner that you have.
[redaction]
As long as we’re bashing Elkins again, he was quite annoyed that an artist changed a word he wrote in a catalog essay for her. He had a long string of adjectives describing her work ending with “sad” and she took that one out. The artist should have consulted him before de-morosing her own work, of course, but jeez, it’s her catalog. She should know if she’s sad or not. This would probably merit a string of blog posts by Catherine Spaeth with the artist’s photo under the caption “Sad Woman.”
As long as we’re bashing Elkins again, he was quite annoyed that an artist changed a word he wrote in a catalog essay for her. He had a long string of adjectives describing her work ending with “sad” and she took that one out. The artist should have consulted him before de-morosing her own work, of course, but jeez, it’s her catalog. She should know if she’s sad or not. This would probably merit a string of blog posts by Catherine Spaeth with the artist’s photo under the caption “Sad Woman.”
Catherine, you may not think of yourself as an academic, but I can’t name anyone blogging about art who defends academic writing as zealously. Saying that your writing is more accessible than a lot of the cotnent in Artforum is a bit like saying that it’s less poisonous than nerve gas. We can lay blame for many of the shortcomings of art writing at the feet of the academy, which favors an obfuscated style and regards all assertions as valid as long as they appear to flatter certain ideological talking points. You have clearly trained in this tradition.
Dire woes ail art writing. Few writers have much of an eye. Because of the way art and art history are taught, the field accepts unexamined poppycock as fact. Academia and the typically mystical tone of artists’ pronouncements sanction a writing style that favors implication, association, and affect over clarity and judgment. And all this happens against the backdrop of the economic disaster that is the market for art criticism. What does your individual encounter with plagiarism say about the milieu as a whole? Almost nothing.
Catherine, you may not think of yourself as an academic, but I can’t name anyone blogging about art who defends academic writing as zealously. Saying that your writing is more accessible than a lot of the cotnent in Artforum is a bit like saying that it’s less poisonous than nerve gas. We can lay blame for many of the shortcomings of art writing at the feet of the academy, which favors an obfuscated style and regards all assertions as valid as long as they appear to flatter certain ideological talking points. You have clearly trained in this tradition.
Dire woes ail art writing. Few writers have much of an eye. Because of the way art and art history are taught, the field accepts unexamined poppycock as fact. Academia and the typically mystical tone of artists’ pronouncements sanction a writing style that favors implication, association, and affect over clarity and judgment. And all this happens against the backdrop of the economic disaster that is the market for art criticism. What does your individual encounter with plagiarism say about the milieu as a whole? Almost nothing.
To be fair to Catherine, it’s probably not a good idea to speculate on what posts she might write in the future based on her inappropriate captioning in the post we’re discussing. I noticed she hasn’t responded to your point, which I interpret to mean she sees some validity to it. This is based on patterns throughout the rest of this thread.
To be fair to Catherine, it’s probably not a good idea to speculate on what posts she might write in the future based on her inappropriate captioning in the post we’re discussing. I noticed she hasn’t responded to your point, which I interpret to mean she sees some validity to it. This is based on patterns throughout the rest of this thread.
:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
Peace and Happiness to One and All
:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
Peace and Happiness to One and All
Eric Gelber is a genius!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Eric Gelber is a genius!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
No he isn’t. He told me so.
No he isn’t. He told me so.
Comments on this entry are closed.