Great questions, and I’ll respond more soon. Thank you.

I appreciate your concern. Fortunately, I’m doing just fine right now :). Talking about art in any kind of meaningful, substantial way inevitably brings charges of pretension (among other things, as you skillfuly demonstrated). We’re used to it.

I won’t, and what a great thing that you can’t make me or anyone else shut up. It must be infuriating for you to read things of the sort I wrote, given that you obviously registered a burner account specifically to respond to me.

I suspect that “tripe” is just about anything you either disagree with or don’t understand.

I’m not mistaking anything. The pre-Raphaelites were damned skilled technically. Yes, they had an aesthetic, but it went beyond that. Their technical skills were used in the service of a particular aesthetic.

I understand what you’re saying, and appreciate it on some level, but I definitely don’t agree or relate with it. Art can and does have meaning that was simply not in the artists’ mind or vision. That’s how it goes. Just last week, I was looking at someone’s exhibition and commented on how a particular piece caused me…

And why is it narcissistic? Saying it’s “obvious” isn’t enough, particularly if we’re having a real discussion. Is there something wrong with selfies, with showing them, with talking about them, with looking at your own body, and so on?

It can’t “fail to provide definite answers” because I’m pretty sure it’s not seeking to give any. I don’t think any art that’s decent or better attempts to give definite answers. At the same time, the vast majority of people are looking for just that.

Feel free to answer the questions I posed.

How do you know that Molly isn’t asking what society thinks?

Let’s just say that none of the things you said are accurate.

Except that not everyone is doing it, and particularly not in the way that Molly Soda is. She is definitely making work in part about that insecurity, and also about some of the strengths inherent in photographing yourself (particularly with a phone). Part of the work is the ordinariness and everyday nature of the…

It’s not so much about the people who don’t understand art, it’s *why* a lot of people don’t understand art. As I wrote above, it has a lot to do with the quest most people have for specific answers and meanings, rather than ambiguity and open interpretations. Also, most people seem to like to impose their own world…

People constantly (and I can’t emphasize this enough) mistake technical expertise/skill with skillful or interesting art. Saying that anyone could make the pictures she made is missing her point, which I think is partly that a lot of people (particularly women) do make pictures of themselves.

Not so much— Rebecca Solnit is one of many people who have observed that most of our problems are caused by men, particularly violence.

Men are shit, unless proved otherwise (and I say that as one). We’re responsible for the vast (to be charitable) majority of problems in the world, and rape is certainly part of that.

Who is “we”? Do you speak for this “we” person?

Agree with her, of course— just want to make the observation that the “retort” she posted is originally the work of Rosea Lake, an art student (at the time) who made the picture.

here for the gifs.

Chris Johnson never touched the ground, and it’s obvious that the zebra closest to him was looking at that. It was a junior high mistake by the Ravens, and it cost them (though perhaps not all that much, since the margin of defeat was more than the three points of the field goal the Cardinals got out of it).