Comments on: The Deaccessioning Wars

By: EuphroniosKrater

EuphroniosKrater — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 18:36:27 +0000

Yes, Admiral, the dodge is an excellent way to pretend you are making an argument when you are actually engaged in flim-flam. Lawyers, like magicians, certainly know how to create distractions to accomplish their actual aim.

As for “sustaining vibrant art markets,” I find your honesty refreshing. Making money is indeed what this is all about–including for dealers, auctioneers and, notably, lawyers.

By: Admiral

Admiral — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:10:54 +0000

It doesn’t matter who it is. You’re wrong in the most important sense of the word — the standard by which the vast majority of people who speak English would understand the word.

Green’s stubborn knee-jerk resistance borne exclusively of arbitrary preference, since it’s certainly not logic or thoughtfulness, would impose his preferences on others at great expense to society, which benefits from sustaining vibrant art markets.

By: EuphroniosKrater

EuphroniosKrater — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:31:41 +0000

Mr. Green? Wrong again. (Imagine my surprise.)

By: Marion Maneker

Marion Maneker — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:44:36 +0000

Mr. Green,

You’re entitled to your opinion. But including a link provides the full context and nothing about the quotes suggests that they are in a particular context. They are presented as random comments from which a reader might make an inference. Nothing more.

By: EuphroniosKrater

EuphroniosKrater — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 19:57:47 +0000

“He makes it clear that he’s posting random quotes taken out of context. He suggests that the reader might make an inference from those quotes but then offers evidence that the inference would be mistaken.”

He does? He makes it clear the quotes are taken out of context how–by including a link? He offers evidence that the inference would be mistaken how–by saying “guess again”?

No. It’s cheese-ball stuff. And has nothing to do with the nuances of deaccessioning.

By: Marion Maneker

Marion Maneker — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:25:56 +0000

You’re entitled to your opinion but there’s nothing dishonest about Zaretsky’s post. He makes it clear that he’s posting random quotes taken out of context. He suggests that the reader might make an inference from those quotes but then offers evidence that the inference would be mistaken.

Where’s the dishonesty in that?

And what does any of that have to do with the rather interesting and nuanced issue of deaccessioning?

By: EuphroniusKrater

EuphroniusKrater — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:03:08 +0000

But, what if the critic actually IS intellectually dishonest–which is clearly the case with Mr. Zaretsky’s post? Your log-rolling is an embarrassment.