"its only the shallow person that does not judge things by their appearance" says Oscar Wilde or, The Shark Responds to Shark Habers Attack! On Poor Roger Kimball and His Fine Book 'Rape of the Masters'

Look for me this argument really is all about politics. Its one thing to create art that is ones own -but to think that no critic or curator can refute it no matter what its quality - Haber's idea that this is even a remote possiblity is as ludicrous and hopelessly romantic as it gets. The term sincerely deluded comes to mind. I make paintings -really interesting, technically complex, philosophically engaged creations -that do not adhere to the rules, sign and signifiers that hold sway in todays contemporary art scene. Are there rules? Of course! As Oscar Wilde said -and Roger Kimball quotes, "its only the shallow person that does not judge things by their appearance". And that describes the lions share of the contemporary painting scene for instance, almost to a T. Take a walk around Chelsea and checkout all the unskilled, washed out, photo-derived tepid slack painting with their 'hidden meaning' that is so in vogue today -Luc Tymans.......remember Mr. Wildes pronouncement. Know that if one makes a strong -visually work of art......you can't do that -the meanings not hidden.......and on and on -as a matter of fact -since this type of work only exists due to a whole lot tof theoretical posturing, anything visually striking must be dismissed as a threat. Is this true? It is -I, have lived it.

There is a mindset at museums, at the art fairs and the educational institutions today. Denial of reality plays a big part in this- or as Nietzsche would call it 'religions of resentment'...I think art can be obviously, many things -but to think for one instant -that there is not a conspiracy -if not by design then at least by fact, is to ignore questions like -why do the same 100 artists all show at all the contemporary institutions -to the exclusion of all others? Why did all the hip slick curators -I could name names freakout when Robert Hughes was named head curator at the Venice Biennial a few years ago -made so much noise Hughes quit -to be replaced by two of the most pc curators out there -Francesco Bonami, and James Rondeau......and they did what was expected -maintaining the status quo. Why are certain artists institutionally annointed? Gerhard Richter comes to mind -thank god Perl had the courage to discuss how poor the work actually is!...Why is the fix COMPLETELY in when it comes to the Chicago art world? A world RULED by the pc crowd...sorry John -its true -don't take my word -ask your friend Mark. Ask him if there is a conspiracy or not... /

I could go on but bottom line, ANYONE who wants to attack this 'environment' that I as an artist am all to familiar with, has my blessing -and frankly the more I read Mr. Kimball's book, the more I concur -I'm not seeing a right wing agenda -anymore than I think Heidegger was a nazi- what I am hearing is a writer attacking academic aggression -the perversion of theory -which is supposed to place art before philospohical constructs .....remember as Kimball points out, the word theory means, to look at -to behold...the idea being that a work of arts raison d'etre is to be found in experiencing the work.....not the talk about the work, not some superstar curators esthetic adventure-

I have spent my life in front of one painting after another -trying to make a good one. I'm not about complaining Mr. Haber -I'm all about the removal of certain peoples heads -in the art world. I am very aware that there are good artists out there. I am also very aware of how few of these the art world of now with its jet setting in crowd actually supports.

I could care less what Roger Kimball likes. What I do care about is what he dislikes -as we share a common enemy.