Dirty car art by scott wade winds fans mad as hell.

1.5K Shares Share

I don’t mean to be offensive or condescending towards Caron’s critics, but there’s an important piece missing when it comes to Caron’s work: that Caron is not actually a critic.

In a sense Caron is a critic, just in a different sense to us. I think it is important to remind Caron about that, to show that Caron does not need to be a critic for being a critic. It makes me think that maybe if his writing has a lot more critical resonance it would have a more profound effect on critics, and thus on us.

When you put it like that, you have to imagine Caron as someone who is really working on changing people’s ideas about how art works. His works aren’t just about art (as far as we know) because Caron believes he is writing for art. We don’t know whether Caron is a critic (or not); all we know for sure is that he is really working on changing people’s ideas about what art is.

Now, Caron is not that different in spirit from others writing on the topic of how art works. Here are just a few recent examples (thanks to my friend David Parnham for some more information and inspiration):

Parnham and I have argued for a number of years that a great way for artists and critics to be a kind of “third party” to art is to have a voice that is part of the criticism that people feel needs to be expressed. We have argued that our voices, like Caron’s, are a bit like the voices of other people, and are meant to be a platform for them to have a say in the quality and form of their criticism.

Some of Caron’s criticisms could be seen as problemati피망 바카라c by a number of other critics, as in his criticism of the New York School:

At some point my critique of art should have led to its deconstruction, because I엠 카지노 쿠폰 realized that art works by art’s very nature isn’t constmgm 바카라ructed out of clay. Art works by nature aren’t constructed of any kind of stone or any of that other useless bullshit. Art works are made out of something much more complex, the ideas of which exist even in the physical world, even in the materials we put in our heads, even the things that we hold in our hands.

Parnham himself thinks that Caron’s criticism of art is too simplistic, and i