Appetite for Destruction

Jeffry Cudlin and Sharon L. Butler take exception to Michael O'Sullivan's review of Amy Sillman's solo at the Hirshhorn. O'Sullivan suggests that he doesn't buy Sillman's claims that her work is conceptual—but then he wraps up by dismissing conceptual art. ("And that's the problem with conceptual art, you see.") O'Sullivan's take on Sillman's work seems, frankly, inaccurate.

Cudlin calls it a head-scratcher. Butler, who is a very keen critic, has a take that strikes me as strong ("Perhaps he would be more comfortable writing for the sports section"); Carol Diehl in comments sounds a self-congratulatory note ("Hi Sharon, we're a great pair: you outing the 'under-thinkers' and me outing the 'over-thinkers'").

That sort of "outing" isn't what's called for in re O'Sullivan's work. Occasionally the blogosphere's talent for correction seems like a calvary that's eager to mobilize. O'Sullivan is no Charlie Finch, that's all I'm saying.