Comments on On Being Mean-Spirited and Creepy

I wish they made "I heart Jen Graves" bumper stickers.

Does anyone say anything to a person's face anymore?

don't worry, you can't spell Hackett with out "hack".

Should read: "If I *were* a hater..."

Just sayin'.

The life of an art critic. Oh, the perils (If Erica C. Barnett finds out you have a car to stick that I Heart Jen Graves bumper sticker she'll probably put your name on a secret list by the way).

I know what to do. Let's pretend Jen Graves, the entire Seattle P.I. and Dale Chihuly all don't exist. Come to think of it, I already was, I just didn't know it 'til I read this blog post.

All in all, this is the stupidest exchange I've seen in a while. You arts critics have a way of even making the "soy makes you gay" guy look sane by comparison. Get out more, hun.

I THINK jEN DOES NOT KNOW THE DIFF BETWEEN ART CRITIC AND SOCIAL THEORY HACK

DALE IS RILLANT AND JEN GRAVES LIKES TO DIMINISH PEOPLE WHO SHINE......ALL THAT ANTI STUFF WAS TO SELL.... A LA STRANGER MARKETING PLAN

GET A CLUE JEN. BE A CRITIC AND LEAVE THE REST......ALONE. WHO CARES.

But, "weasel-like" isn't necessarily the same thing as "creepy" though...

I think you should change your tagline of "Seattle's Only Newspaper" to "the city's best alternative paper" - Regina Hackett, PI

Hackett writes in her blog entry that the terms of the settlements are sealed. Then she writes later that Chihuly "backed off." We don't know that, right?

The only reason that someone who launches an ill-advised lawsuit backs off is when they are told exactly how much money and/or face they will actually lose when they go to court.

Otherwise, they go to court because they think they will win.

Attention shoppers: Logic problem on Isle 3. Me calling Christopher creepy in response to him asking if Dale is creepy isn't creepy. It's recognizing the nature of his query, a comment pseudo-softened by a question mark. (See Jon Stewart on question marks of this sort.)

And Jen: I didn't call you a hater. Hater? You? Never from these typing fingers. You know I disagree on your Chihuly piece. That's it.

And Glenn Fleishman. There are plenty of reasons why people back off lawsuits, esp art lawsuits, as art is poorly understood in many quarters. For instance, the Seattle Times and the Stranger's Chihuly coverage.

That's it, and Happy Holidays back at you, Jen Graves!

I'm not mollified. I won't be until someone tells me what rilliant means.

I wish they made "I heart Regina Hackett bumper stickers".

I wish they made "I Club Dale Chihuly" bumper stickers.

Jesus - out of nowhere Savage makes me spit my coffee all over my computer. I was thinking the same thing, Dan.

Redshirt - No, nobody. Blogs are the new "after school behind the monkey bars."

It's easy to be clever after you've seethed about it all day. Too bad it's overidden by a distinct air of pettiness. And in response to pettiness no less.

Hey, Regina -- You know what doesn't help the understanding of art? Your patent dismissal of any attempt to raise valid questions about the work of an exalted local artist as either knee-jerk haterism (yeah, you didn't explicitly use the word "hater," but even a one-eyed man could read between the lines) or bad coverage. How does refusing to engage with the various real issues the lawsuit raises further intellectual discussion of art in this town?

Here's one of those issues dumbed down for you, just on the off-chance you want to actually engage in a substantive debate: Chihuly's lawsuit raises questions of ownership and production, questions that are tough for him to answer considering that he doesn't physically create most of "his" work, and considering that both the marketing of the art he sells and the medium he's working in place a huge emphasis on the artist's physical connection with each piece he creates. That's a contradiction worth exploring.

And throwing a "questions of authorship were settled 40 years ago by Warhol" in there only betrays your own art-historical ignorance -- Warhol and Chihuly aren't even remotely doing the same things. The former made the idea of factory-style mass-production of art his real art. The latter doesn't even want the factory aspect of his work widely known.

Also, in your response to Glenn Fleishman, are you suggesting that Dale Chihuly poorly understands art, that that's why he dropped the lawsuit?

Seriously, you might try intellectually engaging with art rather than merely lauding everything you see. It's so simplistic to come from the critical standpoint that because artists have been enshrined in the canon, everything they do is breathtakingly wonderful (see your substance-less review of the Bob Dylan show a few months ago for another example).

You guys still argue about art? You should try fighting about morality, that's the new hot shit.

Shit, sports wagering eclipsed arguing about art before that. Get with it squares. Bomb a clinic. Crash a hjacked cab into a 7-11. Antyhing, just be edgy.

Yes, and Saparmurat Niyazov just died. Shouldn't we all be concerned about the political uncertainty in Turkmenistan? How long will his golden statue continue to rotate, following the sun's orbit?

I don't fucking know. Who sculpted it?

These lawsuits and the ensuing fanfare have generated enormous publicity for Chihuly . The man is a marketing genius, and he's about to vault to a whole 'nother level. In 2007 Chihuly plans to up his bi-polar meds, and then using hot glass bits, he'll destroy the sight in his remaining eye, thus establishing himself as a serious performance artist. A PBS documentry: "Chihuly, Blinded by the Light" will follow.

In a final transformation, Dale will become a blind conceptual artist, churning out still larger volumes of work that he cannot see, except in his own mind. He'll hire new assistants that can read and interpret his thoughts, and new accountants to count his money. Portland Press will issue limited edition catalogues, consisting entirely of blank pages. Special Price: $150.00