strunken white January 19, 2015 at 8:34 pm

this is a mild re-phrasing of what I just commented on e-flux:
I’m a little suspicious of how quickly Archey dismisses her complicity in this and the way she does it (“trust me, I’m not an asshole when I can be”…?) but more so I can not agree with how quickly she blows past the different sociability of people on the autism spectrum to land at how these people are fetishized. That doesn’t even sound like who she’s actually talking about in the brief straw-man portion of the post… though it’s easy to agree with the sentiment, I don’t know about any of this on closer inspection…

tom moody January 20, 2015 at 10:23 am

The Archey post is an extended “subtweet” where she passive-aggressively doesn’t address the person she’s complaining about. With a straw man rain man thrown in for good measure. The argument balloons from one Turing-like critic (yeah, who the heck could that be in the art world’s land of compromise?) to generalities about all “creatives,” or rather, all male ones. For the most part, interactions between editors and writers, and between curators and artists, are struggles over creative control, with each party dancing around the personality quirks of the other party. Too many quirks on either side and the transaction falls apart. But that’s not a very dramatic article (accompanied by a painting of Narcissus).

Paddy Johnson January 20, 2015 at 10:36 am

Yeah, I imagined the whole thing was about Brian Droitcour, so I found that enjoyable (even if it’s about him at all).

tom moody January 20, 2015 at 10:51 am

Yes, if it was an extended character demolition of Brian Droitcour, with him mentioned by name, it would be a different article (and likely not written at all). What’s surprising are all the thoughtful, prose-y responses from this e-flux group. Do they not see the post for what it is, or do they just like the sound of their own typing?

Ryder Ripps January 21, 2015 at 1:11 am


Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: