Liz August 13, 2013 at 11:52 am

These are interesting links, but I wonder why your article has such a skewed and negative title, since you don’t bother interrogating most of them. “Um, what?” and “soup nazi” aren’t arguments, and strike me as much dumber than the material you’re presenting. Just my two cents

Paddy Johnson August 13, 2013 at 12:12 pm

There’s nothing smart to be said about Jinushi’s project. It offers too little for that.

As for the rest, these aren’t attempts at arguments. The links are a two to three sentence response to an article elsewhere on the web. If you want to discuss anything we’ve linked to in greater depth, we’re happy to do it in the comment section.

Sean August 13, 2013 at 10:35 pm

You also have confusingly quoted Steinhauer’s argument:

The THAT in “reviews don’t seem to offer the space for that in the way other forms of writing do” refers to, Steinhauer believes, the currency of other models of art writing (profiles, interviews, speculative rambles).

Steinhauer’s argument perhaps points up a important historical question, maybe unwittingly: What is the function/purpose of art reviews in 2013? Your offhand rejection/improper quotation stops readers in their tracks from making the jump to her piece.

Corinna Kirsch August 13, 2013 at 10:53 pm

Sorry you feel that this was a confusing quotation, and as we mentioned to an earlier commenter, the links posts are often too short to address the breadth of any one piece. Actually, I do know of readers who’ve clicked on Jillian’s piece after seeing the links. It’s up to readers to decide whether they agree with any number of pieces we link to on any given day.

Sean August 13, 2013 at 11:34 pm

Corinna, I don’t “feel” that that quotation of Steinhauer’s piece is confusing, it simply is. And I understand, as Patty mentioned earlier, that the posts are too short to give full consideration to any piece. But it seems you want it both ways. To pull a quote that references a previous sentence out of its context is misleading to readers. You then judge the piece and stand behind the limits of the post when the judgment is criticized.

Paddy Johnson August 13, 2013 at 11:06 pm

On the subject of reviews I have to make clear that I don’t share Jillian’s evolving interests. Talking to people is not the same as rationing out a problem on your own and that’s really empowering. Now, I realize I’ve reduced her thoughts a little here, but she’s spun an entire piece on how the death of criticism might not be so bad in 2013 from a press release announcing the layoffs of critics. That’s not okay with me. The web has brought us a lot of great things but it’s not an abundance of thoughtful articles and criticism.

Paddy Johnson August 14, 2013 at 9:13 am

I removed the second part of the quote. It was confusing. Now it’s not. Thanks for bringing our attention to that.

Meanwhile, conversation is making think that a full post in response to the post might be warranted. The more I think about it, the more infuriating I find Jillian’s article.

DAVID E. KEARNS August 14, 2013 at 10:13 am

The irony of that “article” is just how poor a lot of the writing on Hyperallergic is. Half-cocked, half-baked and a-historical, w/ a dose of John Yau on Sunday. The site needs an editor. Badly.

DAVID E. KEARNS August 14, 2013 at 10:15 am

“content” diarrhea….

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: