tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9798750.post1611306774805734984..comments2023-10-07T11:02:09.916-05:00Comments on ArtTrak Tribal Art: Journal of Advanced Appraisal StudiesAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01851394398280891354noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9798750.post-12108612968613785902009-05-03T21:04:00.000-05:002009-05-03T21:04:00.000-05:00A few comments on your review, to keep order, I ha...A few comments on your review, to keep order, I have listed your headings followed by comments.<br /><br />Item I under FAKE ART <br /><br />I have read the article, along with Willet’s 8 steps for authenticity which was referenced in the article. The 8th, step is the only true fake if I am reading correctly, while the 7th progression states items Made by an African in a non-traditional style for sale to an expatriate can be considered African art. If I am reading correctly, pretty much anything made by an African which is for sale to a non African can at least in some form be considered African Art. If items are indeed made by an African and were intended for sale, then they are in fact, at least according to Willet’s step #7, African art. Looking for some clarity on this comment and criticism.<br /><br />Item II under INCOMPLETE INFORMATION <br /><br />The article is about appraising African Art, not the history of African Art so I don’t understand your issue with this part of the article. Knowing the above probably would not help the appraiser. But your comments on Cubism and the movement are in fact very interesting.<br /><br />Item III under INACCURATE INFORMATION <br /><br />Good catch on the selling auction house. So the Fang Mask very well may have inspired Picasso? Your criticism on this point has me confused. Was the mask an inspiration or not? It certainly seems like it was given the connection and affinity, as you state, Picasso and artists of the period had for African Art. Why criticize this point of the article, it seems like piling on, as the author’s point appears correct and is supported by your own reference from the New York Times. You say maybe, but your section heading states inaccurate information, which only applies to the auction house.<br /><br />Item IV under NO CONTEXT <br /><br />The correct thing to do would be to contact an African art expert. I believe the author points that our in the article, if you don’t know the artifact, find someone who does.<br /><br />Item V under INACCURATE INFORMATION <br /><br />Again, the article is about appraising, the important aspect is mentioning CITIES so appraisers are aware of it. You have to keep in mind the context of why the article was written, being for generalist appraisers. Could the author’s explanation on this point have been clearer and more informative, certainly, but is it really INCACCURATE INFORMATRION. As you point out, it may only be sloppy, but that does not necessarily make it inaccurate.<br /><br />Item VI under NO CONTEXT <br /><br />Perhaps “no tradition” was not the best phrase to use, but in context of the author’s statement, does tradition not mean typically or usually. Which is exactly what you are saying, they are rare. You mention 30 items sold in 30 years on your database, so an average of one per year for 30 years. That is rare, but a “tradition” it does not make. To me, you are both saying the same thing, so why the criticisms on this point? Are you purposely looking for items to criticize colleague? In doing so it questions the legitimacy of the review and your intentions toward a colleague.<br /><br />Item VII under FILLER QUOTES <br /><br />As you mention above in your post, you would have written the article differently. This part of the article is not misstated or incorrect, you just would have written it differently.<br /><br />Item VIII under IRRESPONSIBLE FALSE INFORMATION <br /><br />The author does state to check references, and mentions they are only a step above street vendors. This appears to only be a difference of opinion between author and reviewer. The difference between you and the author does not rise to the level of being irresponsible false information. You may not agree with it, but it does not fall into the category of being false and irresponsible just because you disagree. State you disagree, that is fine, but you should not label it as irresponsible and false information. Again, your harshness bringing into question your intentions toward a colleague on this particular criticism <br /><br />All in all, it seems as if you are very upset by the article as your review indicates, which is your right. But the purported errors and misstatements you point out appear to be very minor or only differences of opinion. Yet there is nothing that rises to the level of irresponsible writing.<br /><br />I think your review and criticism of this article was unduly harsh and excessively negative, almost to the point of being personal with a colleague and competitor and that, is unnecessary and irresponsible.<br /><br />AlexAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9798750.post-69448577422153133452009-05-02T13:34:00.000-05:002009-05-02T13:34:00.000-05:00John:
Thank you for this thorough and insightful r...John:<br />Thank you for this thorough and insightful review. I wonder if you would let me reproduce it or paraphrase it in my blog, for readers who may not have a feed from you.<br />I will give you credit and a link out.<br />Thanks.TribalArteryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03966282706936425967noreply@blogger.com