Saturday, August 1, 2009

affair on the forums at

I recently posted to the forums at, where I am a member, asking for comments on my art and linked to here, to my blog, where, as you see, I am selling art with a slideshow at the top of the sidebar.

The post got a comment that alluded to content on my blog that members would find contrary to their art interests. I replied with a post offering a conversation and saying isn't that the strength of America. Then there was a reply from a third party who said that just by mentioning America that way I was showing I wanted to go in other directions than art.

I next sent a private message to the third party, as follows:

You seem to take this matter casually. I do not. The content of my blog is not for WC to censor and I get the feeling you two are trying to do that. I was not aware of any policy regarding llinks on WC. I linked to it because I show and sell art there. I do other things too. I don't disown any of it and I advance all of it as circumstance permits. The link was a way to advance the art and I took it. I expected controversy regarding the art and I linked fully prepared to engage in dispute over it. But not disowning the other things either I accepted the challenge issued by the poster. It would have been more prudent to send him a private message but then it would perhaps have been more prudent for him to send me one too if he wanted to dispute a matter unrelated to art. He could have left his comment on my blog but he left it here. I spoke about it on WC only because it was brought up here by someone else, sullying my name in a way which I will not sit idly by and allow to remain unchallenged where it is open to public view. I believe I did so with integrity, offering a conversation rather than engaging in epithets ("homophobic vitreol"). I am content with my response. You didn't like it. The whole matter should have been handled in private, but once it was out I had to defend myself, or would you disagree? Pehaps the intention of his comments is to disuade other WC members from going to my blog, knowing that he has no grounds to challenge the link. He is intitled to his politics and their advancement like anyone else. What I do about his advancement of his politics is my business, also like anyone else.

This is a private message. Who is responsible for bringing non-art issues to WC? My art is at the top of my blog. My reference to the blog at WC was about art. The other things on the blog are irrelevant to art. Why bring them up? Every day webpages are visited that contain widely diverse subject matter. Some are entirely monothematic. WC, appropriately so, is strictly monothematic. To ask outside sources to link in only if they too are monothematic in art seems to me to be going beyond due process. I made every attempt on my blog to make the art separable from the other things, placing it at the top and putting in a sticky referring only to it. I think I am just as devoted to art, and to keeping business and politics separate, as you are. I don't like this affair. It puts me in a bad llight. I love art. I spend a great deal of time with it. I believe in blogging, and that means openness. It puts a person at risk. It is wide enough a venue to allow anyone to say anything about anything, provided it it lawful. You might say it is more freedom than even the artist has. If by defending my blog I am bolstering bloggers' freedom then art can only gain additional freedom by my standing firm on my position, not on an issue, but on my freedom to link to my blog as a platform for art, as well as other things easily ignored if one is really just interested in the art. I risk comments such as I see here. I would like to appreciate everyone who disputes with me for their every strength. I invite you to do the same. Maybe we should take a cue from President Obama and all go out together for a beer. Make mine a virtual, barkeep!