Viewing page 30 of 62

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

wonder if you would release such an offering from me (or anyone else). It would surely exceed the limitations of criticism (and critics) which (and who) dominate (control) the magazines of present. Amen.
Simply, I do not wish to abide by your unanimous [[crossed out]] decision [[/crossed out]] and unreasonable decision to end our controversy with your "final" editorial. (Also, I do not want to neglect Barbara's anniversary.) Because you have decided not to publish my letter replying to that last editorial, I feel compelled to form another article (as requested) in order to reproduce it appropriately. The same reasoning concerns the "warning" about a peculiar prejudicial predetermination by past Guggenheim Foundation juror or jurors. By the way, Betsy Baker finally decided to release the same letter in Art News (I guess with "editorial sub-head") Curiously, someone at the Guggenheim Foundation was invited to reply. I [[crossed out]] have [[/crossed out]] hope that it was the juror known to be at fault, but I doubt that alternative (I dispatched my "warning" only to you and to Miss Baker because I believed that both of you could be responsive and responsible about the matter.) Of course, there will be much more to the contemplated article than the two letters just mentioned.
I do not agree with you about my former reluctance to use your editorial capacities. I do not sense that your "editorial instinct" should be consulted about the release of the "warning". Certainly, the content of the letter is as you indicate, "not good" for me (for sure, politically and economically) but, contrary to your opinion it may and, most likely, will serve other artists as usable information. (It needs no elaboration for that purpose.)