Of course. As you yourself admit, you have no experience in scholarly research in the History of Craft. Which has its own particular problems and obfuscations. I know whereof I speak. Be well.

Yes, thank you, I know. I wrote the only (to my knowledge) treatise on "Vellum Preparation. History and Technique." Your friend is letting their common sense of craft take a back seat to their need for academic legitimation. Seen it a million times. And it's sad.

Reminds me of an exchange I once had with my friend Paul Maurer the calligrapher, over Michael Fried's Lacanian (meaning "self-indulgent") discussion of the angle of the writing desk in Eakins' portrait of his father. Answer: "Was it a Wednesday or a Thursday?"

But who's unable to answer the question themselves because they're asking from the wrong side of the distinction.

This sounds like the type of question that would be asked by someone who's never cut paper in their repressed academic life.

That's a very common working assumption among art historians and critics. To be resisted at all costs.

Speaking of Rauschenberg and autobiography: Many years ago I was lecturing on Rauschenberg at the Guggenheim Museum when I heard behind me, "Y'all watch what you're saying about me!" Naturally I asked Rauschenberg if he wanted to take over, since he was an expert on himself. Sadly, he declined.

Reminds me of the passage in Kamau Brathwaite where young Jamaicans are trying to write "correctly:" "The snow fell gently, quietly blanketing the sugarcane..."

Nothing more depressing than an American taking on French literary style. The sloppy antecedents alone will sink him.

Too stable for L-S.