Viewing page 32 of 44
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
P.S. Listen, I'm very embarrassed about the [[strikethrough]] K [[strikethrough]] LOOK business, and want to thank you for being so good about it. My excuse, and its a lame one, is also a very direct one: I head a family of five, and it takes exactly the fee for the article to put them all in winter clothing. If we had saved up that much, I would have directed them to Lucyjean Lublip, or the like. November 7, 1967 Mr Dan Flavin Valley View Drive Cold Springs, New York 10516 Dear Dan, Thanks for your letter of the 3rd. All the stuff about Mrs Lipstick and her husband was very funny. Also very funny was your consideration of whether or not you fit into any of the qualifications that make for a contributing editor. Let's leave it at this: the qualification you do meet is that you are worth every nickel of my top fee, and the fee of $200.00 for your work -- a "special case" -- will henceforth be automatic. For the rest, there would be more [[strikethrough]] lest [[/strikethrough]] lost than gained to lace onto you so unlikely a corset as contributing editor of an art magazine. Look, I really don't know why these other folks, Mrs Lipspittle, Mr. Hiss and the rest edit art magazines, and I don't even know what they do as editors except for [[strikethrough]] talkes [[/strikethrough]] like the ones you tell. For myself, I can only tell you this: I am very committed to what I see as a new and serious younger criticism, of a type which did not [[strikethrough]] exsit [[/strikethrough]] exist when I first began to read about modern art. If I didn't think that what I'm doing with the likes of Michael on the one extreme, and Sidney on the other, with, at this point, occasional flashes of insight from the various points in between was extremely worth-while, I would pack up and go back to doing the last worth-while thing I did: work as a social worker in East Harlem. For me, editing has nothing to do with anything other than [[strikethrough]] seeing [[/strikethrough]] recognizing a good writer when I see one and giving him his head. And the only time this rather modest activity seems to have any merit is when I look at the Hesslip and the Tomman and consider that 1) maybe they cant see good stuff when it is laid in front of them or 2) maybe they have some reason not to want to see it. I have no gestures coming to [[strikethrough]] he [[/strikethrough]] me as compliments -- it all goes the other way. It's me that's gratified when I can publish something as sharp as Sidney's essay on Gothic Parallels, as brutal as Michael's essay on Objecthood, and as moral as the various "remarks" things of yours, just because it lends some purpose to my being involved in this wretched art world at all. It goes without saying that I would be pleased and grateful to publish as many of your things as you are willing to let go of; for this opportunity I am forever grateful to the cretinism of Spitlips and Hisspots of the world. Am I missing something? Is there some motive in this perverse interest of yours in so unlikely a title as contributing editor that I can't fathom? I had ARTS in mind for mr Caglioti; Art Voices, until it folded. Dan is right: he should keep his mouth closed until he can open it all the way. But he should also be thinking deeply about the causes of lockjaw, not to mention the results. PL phil
