tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5265813806993497215.post9113572069130730381..comments2024-01-29T00:22:36.258-08:00Comments on e y e C O N T A C T: Elvis repliesJohn Hurrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07411877334096071312noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5265813806993497215.post-18771343855054854452009-08-09T16:54:05.140-07:002009-08-09T16:54:05.140-07:00Very peculiar.Very peculiar.David Cauchihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18128116971441583803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5265813806993497215.post-54473226808172244752009-08-09T05:48:08.490-07:002009-08-09T05:48:08.490-07:00Mmm David, I see you have commented earlier on you...Mmm David, I see you have commented earlier on your site about The Man In The Hat. And you independently came to the same conclusions as me.<br /><br />Perhaps Mr.Ireland is punishing you. It's a good explanation - for his outburst about your site is somewhat peculiar, is it not? Unless he is just stirring for the sheer pleasure of it. Uncharacteristically of course.John Hurrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07411877334096071312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5265813806993497215.post-30054320646432950152009-08-08T19:17:13.827-07:002009-08-08T19:17:13.827-07:00Heh, I'm touchy about most things.
I thought ...Heh, I'm touchy about most things.<br /><br />I thought it funny that, after going on at such length about criticising the actual thing and not some imagined version of it, Ireland hassled my blog for what he imagines it is rather than what it actually is. <br /><br />But then it seems he can't even post a comment on a blog by himself, so I'm not surprised he says silly things about them.David Cauchihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18128116971441583803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5265813806993497215.post-21278634664982278642009-08-07T14:24:49.587-07:002009-08-07T14:24:49.587-07:00You are a little touchy about pointlessandabsurd,D...You are a little touchy about pointlessandabsurd,David. You would agree though that exhibition openings are pretty trivial, and that usually everything gets talked about but the art.<br /><br />eyeCONTACT - just to establish a little clarity - strives to generate some public conversation about work. It is not about being some high and mighty 'art critic' but about saying, 'hey, my view is this.. what do YOU reckon?' It is about starting a dialogue and not claiming to have the last word.John Hurrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07411877334096071312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5265813806993497215.post-42809873626447313002009-08-06T16:11:57.263-07:002009-08-06T16:11:57.263-07:00Ireland: kindly leave me the fuck out of it. I do ...Ireland: kindly leave me the fuck out of it. I do not set up as an art critic, nor do I traffic in gossip from openings.<br /><br />However, seeing as you asked for it, I did find your initial response oddly defensive. I also found the implication that Great Men of 'considerable actual achievement' should be immune from the criticism of the hoi polloi repellent, especially when coupled with the sneering put down of the working class. I suggest you keep your aristocratic power fantasies to yourself. See also the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority" rel="nofollow">argument from authority</a>.<br /><br />Oh yeah, and the comparison with Matisse was particularly specious. All you need to make a drawing is a pen and paper. Making a film is more like making a meal. Once you get into the editing room or the kitchen, what you can make is limited by the ingredients you have assembled.David Cauchihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18128116971441583803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5265813806993497215.post-86596020542455429762009-08-05T23:18:43.386-07:002009-08-05T23:18:43.386-07:00John,
In the end it's about what we believe -...John,<br /><br />In the end it's about what we believe - need to believe, want to believe - and ultimately agreeing to disagree is what makes continuing debate possible.<br /><br />A few points though. My smart-alec reference to Elvis was not directed at you, although, hey, you could look cute in a white satin suit boogying the night away! Nor was my general reference to the blogosphere directed at eyecontact. I wouldn't be wasting my time with this if it had been. My "sneering" reference you say. Given the evidence I think a case could be made that it was a simple observation. Sites such as Eyecontact are few and far between, and as to the rest I'd need convincing that gossip from a few gallery openings has much value in the critical sphere. I'm happy to leave that to the likes of pointlessandabsurd.<br /><br />I'm appalled that I may be mellowing. Like Matisse, I'll just have to try harder!<br /><br />As to my being a "spin doctor" for those associated with the film I make the following points. I'm in nobody's pocket. I've always made a point of distancing myself from any interest group for the sole reason that critical writing can be only done freely. This is a small country, and I've worked for both the film's subject and its director. But neither needs any defence from me: their actual achievement is immune from anything I might write. Neither diminished nor enhanced.<br /><br />Let me give an example. Jill Trevelyan and I have been friends for 20 years. I recently wrote a review for Landfall of her Rita Angus biography. I think it's a great achievement, a view shared by the recent book awards. I also expressed some reservations about aspects of it. But I also used the review to voice some pretty severe criticisms about the subsequent Te Papa touring Angus exhibition, co-curated by Trevelyan and William McAloon. No spin doctoring there. Trooper that she is, Jill took it on the chin.<br /><br />In acknowledging Narbey's skill and experience there was no suggestion that he was somehow a "sacred cow". It is, after all, one of the functions of criticism to round up the sacred cows and slaughter them. Deference to someone's demonstrated skills doesn't imply critical resignation - but it may imply an open-mindedness receptive to learning something new, adopting a new way of seeing even familiar subjects.<br /><br />One of the points I hoped to make in my earlier response was that because of McLeavey's commitment to privacy Bieringa is probably the only person who could have talked him into having the film made, given the mutual respect I alluded to. Yes, ideally, perhaps a film could've have been made about McLeavey the public figure, involving all the hoopla of Hammond pricing, Merylyn's paintjob, et al. But the film made was about the private figure, and that's the only film gonna be made. Get used to the idea.<br /><br />Talking of realism, you claim that my insistence on "the actual subject" is unrealistic. Well, no. The parameters of the actual subject are quite precise and measurable. Books have so many words in a certain order, paintings have certain dimensions and colours, films have a real length, identifiable dramatis personae, actual locations. Focusing on these as the basis of any critical comment is the most realistic take possible for a critic. In fact, I'd hazard saying the ONLY take for a critic. To hitch any discussion to other elements the critic may wish for is, I'd say, being un-realistic. Thirty years ago I didn't complain that you never did the Declaration of Independence in pasta. Not even irately.<br /><br />As for Luit Bieringa being a "timid kiwi" - right after this I'm emailing Tui with a good suggestion for their next billboard. <br /><br />Cheers, Peter IrelandJohn Hurrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07411877334096071312noreply@blogger.com