From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 08/18/02-05:44:09 PM Z
On Sun, 18 Aug 2002, Katharine Thayer wrote:
> ....I find his writing cogent and his viewpoints
> refreshing, insightful, thought-provoking, and in many cases, right on
> the mark. It's not really his job to tell us whether the Pope is
> Catholic, but I would trust him to tell me that (in Ralph Waldo
> Emerson's phrase) "a popgun is a popgun" if that's how he sees it, even
> if the whole art world hails it as the next brilliant thing. That's his
> job, to say what he thinks, not to echo the conventional wisdom, and one
> would think that just his being relegated to the backwaters of lesser
> publications, (like so many cogent thinkers today) would be punishment
> enough for the sin of having independent opinions, without abusing him
> further. My 2cents.
Actually, from those I've discussed the point with, as well of course as
my own observation, it's not the "independent opinions" that condemn Perl
(they tend in fact to General Luddite), rather his penchant for error and
wild, unsupported assertion. For instance, Hilton Kramer, Perl's former
editor (& presumed mentor) at the New Criterion, whose opinions are as
"unpopular," and "Luddite" as Perl's, has, last I heard, at least two
columns in major (or major in NYC), venues -- the New York Observer, where
he's been critic for probably 20 years, and for a while at least (I've
lost track) one of the major tabloid NYC dailies. If memory serves, in
fact, Kramer was for some time senior critic at the New York Times.
But Kramer is a master of invective, his dissection of art politics is
razor keen & right on the money. Where he goes off the track is only in
personal "taste." Perl tends to be off across the board, on facts,
analysis, overview & premises.
JS
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/19/02-11:02:49 AM Z CST