At the time I do remember saying, “A forgery of some outsider art,” not “a forgery of a forgery.” I don’t remember a comment about seeing something before, though at the time I felt much of what I was looking at had been done, which is what I was trying to get at with my admittedly snide, “if I’m not mistaken, has been done before.”

I happened to have been in the Gallery Project when you were observing the art. And since quarters were close, I heard what you had to say about the art.

I remember something about “a bad forgery of a bad forgery”. “When you look at this work, you feel as though you’ve already seen it although you know that you haven’t”.

These comments and others were absolutely spot on and accessible to anyone who was there or for that matter might not have seen the work at all.

In your blog, however, you used words such as “fun”, “fave”, “not faves”. Since I don’t know what your idea of fun is, that doesn’t communicate much to me.

And giving so much print to your “not faves” elevates works to a status of importance that you might not have intended since they’re not your “faves”. In fact, I don’t much like the word “favorite” in a review (”fave” even worse”). It sounds like a flavor of ice cream is being chosen.

I picked on a couple of your words as I tried to get at what was missing in the blog review. But maybe it’s a self-consciousness that comes out knowing that your opinion is no longer just for you.

In short, your blog review fell miserably short of your on site review. I take the time to say this, because your live commentary was some of the best I’ve ever heard (or read should it have been written) in the 30 or so years that I have been reading reviews. I urge you to write your very balanced and informed opinion as though you were muttering to yourself.

Thank you for your fine blog. I find it very interesting and educational.

Best,
EK