Never lake Your it. May-June 1996 / Planet of the Arts 21 oo Seriously The following letter addresses David Franson’s 2nd Year Painting Show review printed in the Feb/March issue of PoA. Rebuttal N°2 see also Franson Rebuttal, page 4 Although as a photo major | wasn’t personally targeted by David Franson’s “review” of the 2nd year painting show, | feel prompted to make a comment after having a discussion with David recently. David told me that his review was intended as a joke and a cri- tique. | have difficulty seeing it as either, since | am accustomed to a joke containing some sort of wit. | also expect a critique of artwork to be a critique of the work itself, not adolescent slagging of the artist’s personality, particularly if the reviewer must fabricate a personality profile of people he doesn’t know. David seemed to feel it was appropriate to use fourth-year level criteria in appraising work done mostly in the four month period fol- lowing foundation year. This is as misguided as the idea that per- sonally insulting people to call attention to oneself is in any way fash- ionable after elementary school. | admit, however, that in respect to calling attention to himself he was successful, as after reading his arti- cle | was prompted to find out more about his work.to see if it backed up his ego. After looking at David’s World Wide Web homepage (http://www.eciad.bc.ca/~dfranson/dfranson.htm), Which | am assuming con- tains some of his better work, | have decided that it warrants a cri- tique. | will try to stay away from personality comments, although | have actually talked to David and found it difficult not to make sever- al mental notes on his wardrobe and hairstyle choices. (Sorry — could- n't resist.) #1 Holga vacation photos: In this series David uses the low-tech Chinese Holga camera to replicate the mundane colour snapshots that most tourists make on vacation with their low-quality 35mm cameras. Very innovative. #2 Close ups of boat hulls: | feel that this area of photography has been sorely neglected. | feel much more enriched after looking at these. It made me really question the whole notion of rust. Just what is rust? What do you want it to be? Brilliant. #3 Five self-portraits with head wrapped in stuff: Each one vrapped with different stuff! A very witty comment on the use of ‘liché in photography. #4 White guy photos: Actually, | thought these were pretty good. \ humourous look at stereotypes. Technically well done. #5 Cheap cameras are fun/Branch project: Photographs of trees ind leaves and stuff craftily overlapped and made with low quality :ameras to try and breathe a little life into otherwise mediocre pho- ographs. #6 Pages from his sketch-book: Crude, childish (not to be con- used with “child-like”) drawings that, guess what, slag other artists! So that’s what | got out of Javid’s work. | encourage you to check it out for yourself. Not that ie cares. He told me he doesn’t sare what anybody thinks about vis work and that he’s sick of :CIAD. Unfortunately for him it’s juite apparent that he doesn’t care, in his work and his attitude. ‘00 bad he doesn’t have a cou- dle more years to fine-tune his vork, but | guess he was proba- rly at the same level in second ‘ear. We all know that nobody earns anything or progresses in hird and fourth year. Darn, | think this ended up deing a bit insulting. It’s okay, | vas just joking. | know David oves a good joke. - Alan Hoffman Sculpture: Bartek Prusiewicz —s. = =. Spourd awakens, Franson’s Reply Both rebuttal letters make the claim that the review was written to satisfy my rapacious ego. I’d like to disclose facts about the review which do not support that hypothesis. The review was originally written under a pseudonym. When | submitted it, Jonathan Lander, an editor of Planet of the Arts, told me that my real name would have to be published. | seriously considered withdrawing the article, but with his encouragement, and the encouragement of others, and the offer of one individual to even run the article under his name, | decided to let it stand. Harald Gravelsins [and other editors -Ed.] later edited the article without consulting me. The changes he [they -Ed.] made (in particular the excision of the more absurd attacks) had the regrettable effect of making an inten- tionally ludicrous piece of writing into something more credible. “Calling attention to [my]self,” as Mr. Hoffman puts it, was never in my agenda. If it was, there never would have been a pseudonym, and my feelings about publishing the piece would never have been mixed. Mr. Stewart’s letter is honest, and his intentions are good. He’s expressing a real opinion, and | can respect that. | have little respect, however, for Mr. Hoffman. If Mr. Hoffman wishes to chastise me publicly for making per- sonal attacks, it behooves him to refrain from mak- ing them himself. Instead of meaningful critique, which he professes to admire, he provides a spiteful review of my work in which he commits most of the sins that he attributes to me. Rather than label carelessly or assert vaguely, as Mr. Hoffman does, | will pro- vide examples. Sin: personal insults. From the pen of Mr. Hoffman: “...[I] found it difficult not to make sev- eral notes on his wardrobe and hairstyle choices.” Sin: inventing personal- ities. Mr. Hoffman's remedy: characterizing drawing: Nicola Sampson me as someone whose develop- ment halted in second year. Sin: holding works in progress to high standards. Mr. Hoffman does the same. It may interest him to know that the branch photos don’t meet my standards, either. I’ve recently shelved that project as a dead end. Sin: insulting people to draw attention to oneself. Mr. Hoffman, your insults, directed at me, have called attention to you, assuming of course that people have read your letter. Sin: pride, ego, hubris. | have addressed this issue above, but Mr. Hoffman seems unaware that in casting himself as my punisher and righter of critical wrongdo- ings, he demonstrates an ego equal to the one he claims that | have. Mr. Hoffman, the ideals that you champion and the ideals that you practice are in discord. | am underwhelmed. if there is a lesson to be learned from all of this, it is sur- prisingly the same one for me as it is for the second-year painters (by the way, painters, | am sorry, and no matter what | claimed at first, your didn’t really deserve it.): Never take your critics seri- ously: they really don’t know what they're talking about. —David Franson Editors’ Note: We felt that PoA readers would be well served by an exchange of views on David's critique of the Second Year Painting Show (PoA February/March 1996). To this end, we solicited David's response to Craig’s and Alan’s letters. In receiving David's critique, we asked him to use his name on the piece as a matter of accountability for the strong views he wanted to communicate publicly. In editing his piece for content, we distinguished between his con- demnations of pieces of work (which were left to stand) and his condemnations of the char- acter or life chances of the artists (which were omitted). We disagree strongly with David's assertion that the omitted portions of his cri- tique were redeemable on the basis of the ludicrousness and absurdity he claims for them. z Feb/March issue of PoA. Rebuttal N92. sls Franson Rebuttal, Although as a photo major | wasn't personally targeted by David Franson‘s "review of the 2nd year painting show, | feel prompted to make a comment after having a discussion with David recently David told me that his review was intended as a joke and a cr tique. I have dificulty seeing it as ether, ince | am accustomed to a joke containing some sort of wit. | also expecta critique of artwork to be a critique of the work itself, not adolescent slagging of the arts’s personality, particularly if the reviewer must fabricate a personality Profile of people he doesn’t know. David seemed to feel it was appropriate to use fourth-year level eing abit insulting It's okay, | ‘vas just joking. I know David ‘ves a good joke. ‘Alan Hotfma MayJune 1996 / Planet of the Arts 21 Never Take Your anes Too Seriously The following letter addresses David Franson’s 2nd Year Painting Show review printed in the Franson’s Reply Both rebuttal letters make the claim that the review was written to satisfy my rapacious ego. I'd like to disclose facts about the review which do not support that hypothesis. ‘The review was originally written under a pseudonym. When I submitted it Jonathan Lander, an editor of Planet of the Arts, told me that my real name would have to be published. | seriously considered ‘withdrawing the article, but with his encouragement, and the encouragement of others, and the offer of one individual to even run the article under his name, I decided to lt it stand. Harald Gravelsins [and other editors -Ed.] later edited the article without consulting me. The changes he [they -Ed.] made (in particular the excision of the ‘more absurd attacks) had the regrettable effect of making an inten- tionally ludicrous piece of writing into something more credible. “Calling attention to [my]self" as Mr. Hoffman puts it, was never in ‘my agenda. fit was, there never would have been a pseudonym, and my feelings about publishing the piece would never have been mixed. Me. Stewart's letter is honest, and his intentions ‘are good. He's expressing ‘real opinion, and | can respect that. Ihave litle respect, however, for Mr. Hoffman. If Mr. Hoffman wishes to chastise me publicly for making per- Sonal attacks, it behooves him to refrain from mak: ing them himself Instead (of meaningful critique, which he professes to ‘admire, he provides a spiteful review of my work in which he commits most of the sins that he attributes to me. Rather than label carelessly or assert vaguely, as Mr. Hoffman does, | will pro= vide examples. Sin: personal insults. From the pen of Mr Hoffman: ..l} found it dificult not to make sev- eral notes on his ‘wardrobe and hairstyle choices.” Sin: inventing personal- ities. Mr. Hoffman's remedy: characterizing hy por awakens the sleeping ime as someone whose develop- ‘ment halted in second year. Sin: holding works in progress to high standards. Mr. Hoffman does the same. It may interest him to know that the branch pphotos don't meet my standards, either. I've recently shelved that project as a dead end, Sin: insulting people to draw. attention to oneself. Mr. Hoffman, your insults, directed at ‘me, have called attention to you, assuming of course that people hhave read your letter. Sin: pride, ego, hubris. | have addressed this issue above, but ‘Me Hoffman seems unaware that in casting himself as my punisher and righter of critical wrongdo- ings, he demonstrates an ego ‘equal to the one he claims that thave. Mr. Hoffman, the ideals that you champion and the ideals that you practice are in discord. | am underwhelmed. Hf there isa lesson to be leamed from all of this, iis sur- prisingly the same one for me as its forthe second-year painters (by the way, painters, lam sorry, and no matter what | claimed at fist, your didn't really deserve it): Never take your critics seri ‘ously: they really don’t know what they're talking about. “David Franson {Sreomeen we dainahe bree i y