Dear Peter
>Thomas A Clark moving from Richard Long to Andy
> Goldsworthy? TAC's work has no trace of the rococo wit of the
> latter (which he sees as misplaced)
and
> In some ways it's always amazed me that his work has found such
>wide assent among different readers, so it's good to hear a
>challenge.
The possibility that A.G. and TAC are domesticated, rabbit-bothering,
weave-your-own-muesli, bookmark bookshop/carrot-cake cafeteria takes
on Land Art. (Which, if true, would mean that they are
pasticheurs, whether they like it or not: not everyone has the
choice.) The possibility that TAC`s "reputation", like Prynne`s
reputation, like (late) Beckett`s reputation, would actually be
enhanced if it were punctured a little by interpretative judgments:
that is, based on the kind of opinion which is capable of being
strategically marshalled and challenged. (I don`t know John
Wilkinson`s work on Clark; I know it`ll be worth reading.) The
possibility that some of TAC`s work is better than other parts of the
oeuvre; that his "Ten Attentions", even on a partial and cursory
reading, is the kind of windy and bathetic tripe he`s already been
getting away with for too long. Still, the important thing is, it`ll
fit nicely on a paperweight, on an eraser shaped like an otter, on
our new leather-look bookmark with the fringe, hello, a customer`s
just walked in...
If anyone can make a case for this sort of thing and convince me into
taking it all back, it is surely you, Peter. Again, I wouldn`t be
without sixteen sonnets. I just don`t like what he`s done since.
robin
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|