I just read the essay that I posted earlier. I should maybe have read the thing first. It was interesting but felt more like a historical document. It was written in 1965 and I feel like he has all these charming ideals that really don't make much sense. Most of what he's talking about I feel like I can understand from a primarily historical context. Not much makes me think, "Yes! You are so right Don. Teach me."
BUT - I do much prefer his style of writing to ArtForum's. I think that ArtForum gets lost in its own anus at times (probably like Derrida but ideas that are less interesting). Judd's writing is direct even when it is abstract. He makes simple statements and doesn't use many $20 words. $20 words don't make your writing any more profound, folks. It just means that you can't write very well or very clearly - and that you are lazy. Not that my writing here is top notch at all. But then again, I'm not publishing this and selling for $10 bucks on the street.
So - good job Don on the writing. But you're not relevant anymore.
BUT - I do much prefer his style of writing to ArtForum's. I think that ArtForum gets lost in its own anus at times (probably like Derrida but ideas that are less interesting). Judd's writing is direct even when it is abstract. He makes simple statements and doesn't use many $20 words. $20 words don't make your writing any more profound, folks. It just means that you can't write very well or very clearly - and that you are lazy. Not that my writing here is top notch at all. But then again, I'm not publishing this and selling for $10 bucks on the street.
So - good job Don on the writing. But you're not relevant anymore.
No comments:
Post a Comment