Viewing page 11 of 62

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

[[left margin]] 2 [[/left margin]]

description of his paint-things and other attitudes;  Mike Fried required no naming but an extensive, clinical "put down" of his generic type and publishing activities which easily identified him and his closed, officione critical cult.  With the case of Otto Piene's "striving to induce a current psychological 'high' ", I thought to discuss the condition and not the person.  What you must do to relieve your substitution of Smithson for Piene is beyond me. 

Try as I may, I cannot separate my alleged hypocrisy (a strong charge) "general rather than specific" from the "implied" hypocrite me.  Besides that, I do not believe your accusation.   I construe my written role as that of a commentator about my own art and that which affects it and its conduct.  If my art was not engaging, my writing should be worth less reading.  Probably, "...on an American artist's education" is the first complete exception to the last remark.

I haven't researched my published attitudes at all, but I sense that my only attack which would fit your description "endless, minute and unvarying" is the one applied to critics, their positioning and results - certainly, that is not true for "art journals in which you (I) continue to propagandize." 

As far as special critical support for my art toward dealer and museum personal attention is concerned, you are plainly mistaken.  If, over the years, I