A REPORT FROM THE PHANTOM ZONE

What do you do about a child who is behaving badly just for the attention? You don't want to acknowledge the behavior because that is exactly what the child wants, but at the same time, you want to correct the behavior.

So what do you do?

In this case, I have an art critic's dilemma. Should I write about work that I believe has, at least mostly, been created to gain as much negative attention as possible? Even if the work has other positive aspects (which it does) should I tacitly encourage other artists to make similar work just for attention?

In this specific case, an exhibition has just opened in New York and the artist I'm considering writing about has even said that they wanted to make "something that would provoke even me"¹. The artist goes on to say, ""My ego as an artist says I can make anything look good."

So if I actually write about the show, I will expose you to iconoclastic work from an artist who admittedly makes work to garner attention and satisfy their ego.

I'm not saying I like the work or dislike the work; I'm just not sure that as a critic, I should acknowledge work that has been created mostly to gain attention.

So rather than write about the work, I'm going to try something different:
One of the best parts of the web is the democracy of criticism and since this is an on-line publication, I think we should use this power of the web.

Below is a link to the gallery showing the work. Only if you want to, click on the link and check out the work. Then leave your critique of the show in the comment section on the blog post. Anything you have to say will be welcome.

I'm giving you full warning that the exhibit is purposely iconoclastic and of course, viewing the work on the web is not at all the same as viewing it in person.

Let's see what happens: http://www.yvon-lambert.com/index_ny.php

[1] - Quote from Lynn Yaeger's Village Voice Column