[Alan_Dillman]

>So: why should we--why should anyone--care about your half-arsed opinion?

I don't think you effectively critiqued yakshaving by repeating what he said about the commentating art community. Their opinions are worth no more than his, my, or your half-arsed opinions. You haven't defended them when he's speaking against pretentiousness.

Art is art, and it doesn't need an adhoc recital of catch phrases and in-words performed by those gathered around. In saying "You just don't understand", you gilt no dirt.

There's no need for a bait and switch. Yakshaving didn't criticise the art, he criticised the chatter, which is just a gussied up version of "I like the colour" and "The way it creaks in the breeze gives me the heebie-jeebies".

Its like a party after a hanging, and regardless of whether it is a painting, or an outlaw, there's something uncomfortable and unnatural about people gathering around to nod their heads in satisfaction.

[widjit]

Where does this strawman of art commentating come from? Loud people at parties?

Have you ever read a good book on art theory or art history? By whom? Have you ever, as an artist, sat around with someone in the same practice and wanted to talk about the meat of what it is you're doing? 'I like the colour' is a fine thing to say, but anyone who is even slightly curious will follow it up with I wonder why? or I wonder if there are any colors I don't like or any of a million other questions. Letting it sit at 'I like the colour' is kind of lame.

Or maybe all discussion of art is 'a gussied up version of "I like the colour";' in that case, then all software engineering is making colored lights blink in patterns--see how useless it is to ignore complexity?