a looking-glass book

Tripp. Just finished reading.

Since you've talked to me about this a bunch, I basically sort of know what you are going for. However, if I was reading this without that background, I think I'd be very lost. You present great examples of many things that all contribute to a specific argument. The problem, to me, is that your major argument is a little obscured. It's supposed to be (correct me if I'm wrong) that technology has created an environment in which art is placed in the hands of the masses, and that therefore, some system of expertise needs to be installed that allows good stuff to rise to the top. Right?

Ok, so first of all, you need to state that more explicitly in the beginning. You mention that tech makes art more decentralized, but don't hint at the expertise element. Therefore, when it comes up about halfway through, it seems out of context, because up to that point you've only been talking about the technology and how it breaks down the "art critic" system, patronage, etc.

Another issue is that you seem on the fence (in the paper) about how good this decentralization is, as you define it. It isn't necessarily a bad thing to say that you like something, but it needs x, y, z, but it makes the overall argument of the paper a little less clear. In other words, it's almost like 2 papers: 1) The web has decentralized art, and that is good because people now have the power to define great art and then 2) But I don't trust these people, in general, so we have to revert to some system of filtering based on expertise, and that should be achieved in x, y, z...

Again, presenting positives while still identifying problems with those postitives is fine, but in the context of the way this paper is written, the argument becomes a little fragmentary.

When I say "the way this paper was written" I mean that it needs to be tightened a lot. I know it's a first draft, and it reads like one. Basically, overall, your argument is referenced in about 4 or 5 paragraphs in 14 pages. The examples you give are good, but you only give them as examples of these multiple 'sub arguments' such as 'technology will move us ever forward' or 'culture us moving away from being based on common experience.' To be sure, these arguments can be tied back to your larger point, but right now they are not, and don't really serve your argument. Again, in other words, reading the paper is like reading an argument that isn't supported with much evidence ( concrete examples of decentralized art -- the only good example you give here is the Matthew Barney thing, which is actually a qualifer that says that art still is centralized and controlled by critics), but contains a lot of little useful bits of information and interesting threads, and then is bookended by the same "decentralization of art" theme. A specific example: The OS stuff may be useful, but it is based on the 'technology' thread of your paper, and really brought me away from your argument. I'm not saying that these examples wouldn't be useful, necessarily, but they need to be integrated more carefully, more deliberately.

In summary, you have an interesting topic to argue. I think you need to either really look at your examples more closely and flush out how they tie directly back to your argument (because I think they do), or come up with some new examples that are more specifically researched for this topic. A lot of these examples seem like you are just citing things you have read recently, which is fine -- they are all valid -- but it's like you don't want to leave anything out, however tenuous it may be. Which is a problem I sometimes have too.

ok, whew. didn't mean to be too negative. lots of good ideas, but I'd like to see them expressed a little more clearly.

I believe that all government is evil, and that trying to improve it is largely a waste of time.