Help Defend The Old Masters - Anti-hockney Petitio

[KLWilliams]

URGENT: Help Protect the Reputation of the Old Masters:

In case you haven't heard: David Hockney, an artist of very limited ability by our standards, has had lots of positive press and very little criticism for his theory that the old masters used optical aids such as the camera obscura (a primitive camera-type lense) as early as the 14th century to trace their drawings. Hockney did not bother to look for living artists who can reproduce the appearance of reality 'by eyeball,' in contradiction of his notion that it simply can't be done -- and there are hundreds of such living artists, despite the decline of standards in the 20th century.

Now the Art Renewal Center has hooked up with optical scientists and art historians to expose the fraudulent thesis of Hockney's book (Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters), and ARC has posted a Petition calling for a televised rebuttal of the cheating-old-masters idea. Please look at the evidence and sign the Petition if you agree that the other side of this story deserves to be aired. Our petition and other evidence against the Hockney theory will be presented to the media on October 15th, so it's important to act now.

This is an instance of what Objectivists will recognize as Hatred of the Good, only Hockney goes even a little further, into what I'd call Smearing of the Great. It's not often we get a chance for real art activism where one issue can make a difference to the culture, but this is one. Please see Brian Yoder's detailed article Why David Hockney should not be Taken Seriously and then sign the Petition.

Please also forward this message to like-minded friends and colleagues, or use the Tell-a-Friend feature on the Petition itself if you want to send to a list of email addresses.

--Kate Williams

[stephen_speicher]

Now the Art Renewal Center ... This is an instance of what Objectivists ...

I wonder which "Objectivists" you have in mind? I know very little about ARC, but I am always suspicious of any organization whose Chairman seeks to promote through David Kelley's TOC. Actual Objectivists do not consider that organization to represent Objectivism in any way.

[KLWilliams]

I wonder which "Objectivists" you have in mind? I know very little about ARC, but I am always suspicious of any organization whose Chairman seeks to promote through David Kelley's TOC. Actual Objectivists do not consider that organization to represent Objectivism in any way.

There is absolutely no association between the Art Renewal Center and David Kelley or any of Kelley's activities. Mr. Ross did once respond to questions from an objectivistcenter interviewer (asked by email, I believe), which hardly constitutes 'seeking to promote' ARC through Kelley.

I find only one listing of his name on this Google search: site:www.objectivistcenter.org "Fred Ross"

Which is not to say that ARC is an Objectivist organization, either: it certainly isn't; although there are two Objectivists on the management team.

Stephen, I wish you would retract this; there is a real need for people to help expose the falsehoods of Hockney, and we know there will be an audience for the Petition at an upcoming optical science event. His ridiculous notion that the great masters of art history couldn't draw any better than he can is already starting to appear in other books, including one art history textbook.

--Kate

P.S. The Objectivists I was referring to in my original post are the ones here on this forum!

[stephen_speicher]

There is absolutely no association between the Art Renewal Center and David Kelley or any of Kelley's activities. Mr. Ross did once respond to questions from an objectivistcenter interviewer (asked by email, I believe), which hardly constitutes 'seeking to promote' ARC through Kelley.

Kelley's TOC wrote, on September 2001,

"Linda Dulaney, executive director of the Art Renewal Center, located in Port Reading, New Jersey, recently wrote Navigator to announce the arrival of ARC's first newsletter. ARC's mission statement cites ..."

The note continues on with a long promotion of ARC.

Then, Kelley's TOC also wrote, on November 2001,

"Further news from the art renaissance front came in an August 9 letter to Navigator from Fred Ross, chairman of the Art Renewal Center ..."

The article then continues on with another long promotion of ARC.

Stephen, I wish you would retract this ...

Retract what? That on two occasions the Executive Director and then the Chairman of ARC wrote to Kelley's TOC to have them promote their organization? Does the Executive Director and the Chairman deny what was reported? If so, provide the evidence and if it convinces me that neither of these two sought to promote their organization through Kelley's TOC, then I will retract my suspicion. If not, why would I want to retract a fact?

there is a real need for people to help expose the falsehoods of Hockney,

Whether that is true or not, your "need" does not trump my principles. I am always very suspicious of anyone who seeks to promote themselves or their organization through Kelley's TOC. I do not abide with Kelley and his organization, and I prefer not to deal with anyone who does.

[KLWilliams]

I see that David Veksler has the Art Renewal Center listed in his links on this very site. On Google, there about 100 listings for ARC associated with other Objectivist individuals and organizations, and just 2 from TOC. (+"art renewal center" +Objectivism) I still say you're painting an unfair picture of ARC with this insistence that the organization "sought to promote itself" via David Kelley etc.

The Chairman of the Art Renewal Center (and Linda Dulaney, who volunteered to help promote the site in its early days) would have no way to identify that interview/information requests came from philosophically-undesirable sources. He is not trained in philosophy; he is a successful businessman with a love of great visual art, trying to bring it back into the public's awareness.

Now, why should the whole organization be tarred with the David Kelley brush because of one or two contacts, several years apart? I am not trying to claim that the Art Renewal Center is a proper Objectivist organization, only that the false Hockney theory needs to be exposed.

--Kate

[stephen_speicher]

I still say you're painting an unfair picture of ARC with this insistence that the organization "sought to promote itself" via David Kelley etc.

You may not like the facts, but they are facts nonetheless. Also, if you intend to quote me again please quote the actual words I said.

The Chairman of the Art Renewal Center (and Linda Dulaney, who volunteered to help promote the site in its early days) would have no way to identify that interview/information requests came from philosophically-undesirable sources. He is not trained in philosophy; he is a successful businessman with a love of great visual art, trying to bring it back into the public's awareness.

That is fine, and it sounds quite admirable. And, ordinarily, I would not expect, nor would I be suspicious of, an independent organization that had no knowledge of Objectivism and yet promoted their work through Kelley's TOC along with others. In such a case it would not be reasonable to expect that they understand the nature of Kelley's organization. However, need I remind you that you came here, appealing in words specifically to Objectivists, and thereby it was you who introduced Objectivism to this issue.

Now, why should the whole organization be tarred with the David Kelley brush because of one or two contacts, several years apart?

Look, Kate, I am not tarring the whole organization. ARC may be a wonderful organization, with a wonderful staff and a wonderful agenda. However, you came here specifically to appeal to Objectivists for what you portray as a common cause, and some of us Objectivists have learned, the hard way, to be careful about the organizations we become involved with. In searching the internet I discovered ARC's promotion through Kelley's TOC and that to me is a red flag of caution.

I have not condemned the whole organization nor have I sided against your cause. All I have really said is that I am suspicious of organizations that promote themselves through the TOC. I have every right, as history has shown me, to think and feel that way. Indeed, as you describe, it may have been an innocent act on the part of the heads of the organization and, if so, that is unfortunate. But please do not tell me that I am being unfair when I am just taking cognizance of the facts at hand.

Also, you mentioned that you have "two Objectivists on the management team." Were they consulted, or were they aware, of the two promotions through Kelley's TOC?

[stephen_speicher]

Incidentally, Kate, it may not be necessary, but I should make clear to you that I have been speaking for myself only. I do not speak for Objectivism or for any of the other members of this forum.

[Thales]

Stephen,

I can't vouch for the organization, but...

I do know Brian Yoder. A neat guy. He is an Objectivist, and I'm pretty sure he's not a Kellite. He is very opinionated on such things, so he won't hesitate to tell you his view. I do remember that he considered Sicabarra's book on Ayn Rand to be completely wrong.

He and I used to argue with environmentalists on Compuserve, before the Internet was so big. That's where we came across each other, in the Earth forum on Compuserve.

He's very knowledgable in art. In fact, he has his own web gallery of art linked to his home page here...

[jfortun]

For my part, finding a good cause in the art world to support is tough enough without excluding those that had (or have) a very minor association with undesirables. I think we can recognize and act on the good in something; as long as we never drop the context we needn't compromise our principles.

on to the OP:

I had the misfortune of watching a documentary some years ago featuring Hockney and the man is a hack. Even if what he states is true, that the Old Masters utilized a camera obscura to assist in their art, they are still much greater artists than Hockney and his modern comrades. That said, I don't believe Hockney knows what he is talking about and it does seem like hatred of the good.

[MrSubtle]

Stephen,

I can't vouch for the organization, but...

I do know Brian Yoder. A neat guy. He is an Objectivist, and I'm pretty sure he's not a Kellite. He is very opinionated on such things, so he won't hesitate to tell you his view. I do remember that he considered Sicabarra's book on Ayn Rand to be completely wrong.

He and I used to argue with environmentalists on Compuserve, before the Internet was so big.    That's where we came across each other, in the Earth forum on Compuserve.

He's very knowledgable in art. In fact, he has his own web gallery of art linked to his home page here...

Thanks Thales. I think you're a neat guy too. ;-)

Just to clear the air about ARC a bit, since I was one of the founders of the organization, I think I can fill in some details about the group. First of all, it is not an Objectivist organization. I would guess that at least half of the members wouldn't even know what you were talking about if you mentioned Objectivism. It is an artistic organization, but one that takes positions that Objectivists would generally find attractive. That should not be surprising since several of the leaders of the group are Objectivists.

Regarding the Kelley issue, this thread here is the first time I have ever heard of Fred communicating with any of those guys or them ever saying anything about ARC positive or negative. From the looks of it, some Kelleyite aparently asked Fred a question which he answered (I doubt that Fred has ever heard of David Kelley, let alone have an opinion of him or his group), and their website said something nice about ARC. Who knows, maybe some Scientologist has asked some ARC board member a question too, and they might have even said something nice about us. Does that mean that we are a bunch of Scientologists or that we as a group sanction their beliefs?

For the record, I don't agree with the Kelleyites and I find most of them to be annoying people too, and I don't have anything to do with them, but this is not ARC's fight, and I'm not going to get ARC embroiled in some controversy like this over an issue irrelevant to its mission and over such a minor note in their little newsletter. Heck, their comments are probably being read by more people in this thread than it did in the original publication.

As for Sciabarra's books, you are right, I they are all abominable. It's amazing that someone could be so wrong so consistently, but he seems to be very good at it. ;-)

--Brian

[MrSubtle]

Oh, and by the way, I would like to encourage you all to sign the anti-Hockney petition and spread the word about it. There's a conference coming up in October where the petition will be used to help demonstrate that despite what Hockney claims, not everyone believes his nonsense.

http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/debunk...hockney_theory/

You can also read my article on the topic http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2004/Hockney/yoder1.asp if you want to know a bit more about the controversy.

--Brian

[rmcnabb]

Hello,

This is my first post to this forum. I've been reading things here for several months. This subject caught my eye because I recently saw a talk on this by a physicist (I have a PhD in physics myself).

I can't comment on the art history aspect of the debate, but some of the points he made based on optics seemed compelling. He showed that a number of paintings had imperfection that were consistent with the use of optical aids, for instance lines that were a bit curved and focal points that changed across the painting. He stated clearly that his arguement wasn't, "this is to perfect to be done by hand" but, "if it were done by hand it wouldn't have these exact imperfections". He didn't argue that every painting was done this way, in fact, some of the evidence he presented had to do with discontinuities where he believed the artist had gone from an optical aid to freehand drawing within a work.

I don't know how much different his ideas were from Hockney's and I certainly won't claim to be absolutely convinced from just a single 1 hour talk. But, his arguements were reasonable and he backed them up with examples in paintings he showed. He even made some comparisons to modern techniques for spotting faked photgraphs.

What I can say with certainty, is that I did not walk out of that talk thinking that these painters were a bunch of frauds who just used tracing and paint by numbers. Rather, I thought that they were gifted artists who developed a set of useful techniques for improving their sketches and paintings. It didn't seem to be an attack on their genius, but further testament to it.

[MrSubtle]

Hello,

  This is my first post to this forum.  I've been reading things here for several months.  This subject caught my eye because I recently saw a talk on this by a physicist (I have a PhD in physics myself). 

  I can't comment on the art history aspect of the debate, but some of the points he made based on optics seemed compelling.  He showed that a number of paintings had imperfection that were consistent with the use of optical aids, for instance lines that were a bit curved and focal points that changed across the painting.  He stated clearly that his arguement wasn't,  "this is to perfect to be done by hand" but, "if it were done by hand it wouldn't have these exact imperfections".  He didn't argue that every painting was done this way, in fact, some of the evidence he presented had to do with discontinuities where he believed the artist had gone from an optical aid to freehand drawing within a work.

  I don't know how much different his ideas were from Hockney's and I certainly won't claim to be absolutely convinced from just a single 1 hour talk.  But, his arguements were reasonable and he backed them up with examples in paintings he showed.  He even made some comparisons to modern techniques for spotting faked photgraphs.

  What I can say with certainty, is that I did not walk out of that talk thinking that these painters were a bunch of frauds who just used tracing and paint by numbers.  Rather, I thought that they were gifted artists who developed a set of useful techniques for improving their sketches and paintings.  It didn't seem to be an attack on their genius, but further testament to it.

You don't recall the name of the guy do you? If it was Charles Falco, he's Hockney's right hand man, and from what I have seen, just as willing to ignore evidence and make unfounded leaps of logic as Hockney. You can find some good material refuting his positions from Dr. David Stork at:

http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~stork/FAQs.html

http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~stork/FalcoOPNresponse.html

http://webexhibits.org/hockneyoptics/post/stork.html

and also...

http://www.diatrope.com/hockney.html

--Brian

[rmcnabb]

You don't recall the name of the guy do you?  If it was Charles Falco, he's Hockney's right hand man, and from what I have seen, just as willing to ignore evidence and make unfounded leaps of logic as Hockney.  You can find some good material refuting his positions from Dr. David Stork at:

Yes, I just found his name and it was Falco.

As I said, I don't have enough knowledge of the subject to determine whether the theory is true. But I don't think it constitutes an attack on the reputation of these artists. If they did use optical aids in some places, as Falco claimed, that doesn't diminish their accomplishments. After all, it's not as if painting suddenly becomes easy when these techniques are used. It would just be another tool to help make their work better.

[stephen_speicher]

There's a conference coming up in October where the petition will be used to help demonstrate that despite what Hockney claims, not everyone believes his nonsense.

Speaking of conferences ... I note in your article, Why David Hockney should not be taken seriously, you make the claim that at a New York University conference Hockney admitted that he abandoned using his suggested technique " 'within ten minutes' " because it was "far too impractical." I would think that such a statement made by Hockney would be a sort of fait accompli, putting a final end to the entire issue. Yet you provide no reference for his quoted remark. Is this comment by Hockney in the Conference Proceedings? What exactly is your source?

[MrSubtle]

Speaking of conferences ... I note in your article, Why David Hockney should not be taken seriously, you make the claim that at a New York University conference Hockney admitted that he abandoned using his suggested technique " 'within ten minutes' " because it was "far too impractical." I would think that such a statement  made by Hockney would be a sort of fait accompli, putting a final end to the entire issue. Yet you provide no reference for his quoted remark. Is this comment by Hockney in the Conference Proceedings? What exactly is your source?

I have read about it in a couple of places, for example: http://webexhibits.org/hockneyoptics/post/falcograves4.html. I gather that it was a side comment that he made at the 2002 conference rather than part of a prepared speech or paper.

You might think that his saying something like that would sink his argument, but this whole thing is driven not by a desire to understand the best ways of maling art, or the actual methods of the Old Masters, but by a desire to undercut them and make them seem more like contemporary hacks like Hockney. As a result, logic, truth, and consistency don't matter to his supporters and they won't be swayed by a little problem like that.

--Brian

[MrSubtle]

Yes, I just found his name and it was Falco. 

  As I said, I don't have enough knowledge of the subject to determine whether the theory is true.  But I don't think it constitutes an attack on the reputation of these artists.  If they did use optical aids in some places, as Falco claimed, that doesn't diminish their accomplishments.  After all, it's not as if painting suddenly becomes easy when these techniques are used.  It would just be another tool to help make their work better.

There are a couple of reasons that this is a big deal. One is that it's a matter of fact. The Old Masters didn't draw and paint the way Hockney claims. He can't just rewrite history like that without a lot of complaining from people like me.

Another issue has to do with his argument for why it is that they

"must have" use optical tools...that the Old Masters couldn't draw and paint. It would be different if he was saying that they did it to save time (which he does say on occasion actually) or as a curiosity, but he says that they used them because they didn't have any other way to do it.

This idea is particularly dangerous because it teaches young artists that they should never bother trying to learn to paint and draw well because that has been "proven" impossible. What worse message could you teach a young artist?

Hockney's theory also demeans living artists who are doing every day what Hockney claims must be impossible. He's basically calling them liars and he claims that they can't possibly exist. Don't you think that's a bad thing?

--Brian

[tommyedison]

I think whatever he is doing, no matter how absurd or wrong, he'll win out in the end. Just like Mormonism survived and won. Perhaps he'll be remembered as one of the great masters of his time unless some major philosophical reevaluation takes place. Like when relativism, initially came into existence, it was rejected by religious absolutists. Now it is so pervasive.

[rmcnabb]

There are a couple of reasons that this is a big deal.  One is that it's a matter of fact.  The Old Masters didn't draw and paint the way Hockney claims.  He can't just rewrite history like that without a lot of complaining from people like me.

I agree with this. If his theory is wrong, it should certainly be refuted.

Another issue has to do with his argument for why it is that they

"must have" use optical tools...that the Old Masters couldn't draw and paint.  It would be different if he was saying that they did it to save time (which he does say on occasion actually) or as a curiosity, but he says that they used them because they didn't have any other way to do it.

This idea is particularly dangerous because it teaches young artists that they should never bother trying to learn to paint and draw well because that has been "proven" impossible.  What worse message could you teach a young artist?

Hockney's theory also demeans living artists who are doing every day what Hockney claims must be impossible.  He's basically calling them liars and he claims that they can't possibly exist.  Don't you think that's a bad thing?

--Brian

I don't recall Falco saying anything like this. I remember quite clearly that he said his arguement was not that they couldn't possibly paint this perfectly freehand, but rather that if they were painting freehand there would not be the exact imperfections that he pointed out. I also don't believe he ever suggested that they couldn't draw or paint. As I understood it, he argued that these were techniques they used sometimes, not in every painting. And, moreover, my impression was that these techniques were used only in sketching, not in the actual painting.

[stephen_speicher]

I have read about it in a couple of places, for example: http://webexhibits.org/hockneyoptics/post/falcograves4.html.  I gather that it was a side comment that he made at the 2002 conference rather than part of a prepared speech or paper.

Then you are repeating a fourth party source (David Stork) who himself is repeating a third party source from a personal communication ("pers. comm."). Does it not strike you as being even just a little bit odd that a prominent figure like Hockney, who presented his thesis in many articles, interviews, and a book between 1999 and 2004, who all this time has continued to defend and explain his thesis, would, in mid-stream 2002, comment that his thesis was wrong and then move on with his continued defense?

When you put words like those in quotes and attribute them to a man, you are having him make a statement of fact about his own character, and in doing so I think it would be most proper to be sure of the source and document it well. (I also note that your third party source himself qualifies the quote with "he is reported to have said," rather than stating it as a matter of fact as you did in your own article.) And, you fail to note that in the debate which you reference that the physicist Falco objected and noted that he himself had personally witnessed his own portrait being painted by Hockney by the method which Stork questions in the supposed "quote."

... but this whole thing is driven not by a desire to understand the best ways of maling art, or the actual methods of the Old Masters, but by a desire to undercut them and make them seem more like contemporary hacks like Hockney.  As a result, logic, truth, and consistency don't matter to his supporters and they won't be swayed by a little problem like that.

I take it then that you are privy to quite a lot of personal knowledge of the inner workings of the mind of physicist Charles M. Falco (whom you characterize as "Hockney's right hand man") in order to know so much about Falco's motivation and accuse him as acting by a "desire to undercut" rather than a "desire to understand." I do not know Falco but I looked up his credentials and I see he has a Chair of Condensed Matter Physics and is also a Professor of Optical Sciences. His educational background, his technical work, his professional affiliations, his awards and honors, do not strike me as being representative of a man for which "logic, truth, and consistency don't matter."

I have not read Hockney's book -- nor do I intend to -- and I have not studied the facts of his thesis well-enough to know to what degree, if any, his thesis may be true. But when I read articles by physicist Charles Falco I get an entirely different impression of the man than the one that you characterize here. You may ultimately be right in Hockney's thesis being mistaken, but some of your protrayals seem far from objective and undercut your own thesis in this matter.

[MrSubtle]

  I don't recall Falco saying anything like this.  I remember quite clearly that he said his arguement was not that they couldn't possibly paint this perfectly freehand, but rather that if they were painting freehand there would not be the exact imperfections that he pointed out. I also don't believe he ever suggested that they couldn't draw or paint.  As I understood it, he argued that these were techniques they used sometimes, not in every painting.  And, moreover, my impression was that these techniques were used only in sketching, not in the actual painting.

I don't know what Falco said in this particular case, but Hockney certainly DID say that it was impossible to draw/paint realistic images without optical tools, and Falco is his "get away driver". He may not be the guy who committed the intellectual crime, but he was the leader of the rest of the gang.

--Brian

[MrSubtle]

Then you are repeating a fourth party source (David Stork) who himself is repeating a third party source from a personal communication ("pers. comm."). Does it not strike you as being even just a little bit odd that a prominent figure like Hockney, who presented his thesis in many articles, interviews, and a book between 1999 and 2004, who all this time has continued to defend and explain his thesis, would, in mid-stream 2002, comment that his thesis was wrong and then move on with his continued defense?

I don't know how much you have seen of Hockney in interviews or books, but he is constantly saying inconsistent things (and a lot of vague ones with gaps in detail you could drive a truck through too). The comment I made about this contradiction not deterring Hockney's fans was directed at them in general rather than Falco in particular. An irrational movement is unlikely to dissolve overnight just because its leader says something contradictory.

When you put words like those in quotes and attribute them to a man, you are having him make a statement of fact about his own character, and in doing so I think it would be most proper to be sure of the source and document it well. (I also note that your third party source himself qualifies the quote with "he is reported to have said," rather than stating it as a matter of fact as you did in your own article.)  And, you fail to note that in the debate which you reference that the physicist Falco objected and noted that he himself had personally witnessed his own portrait being painted by Hockney by the method which Stork questions in the supposed "quote."

I take it then that you are privy to quite a lot of personal knowledge of the inner workings of the mind of physicist Charles M. Falco (whom you characterize as "Hockney's right hand man") in order to know so much about Falco's motivation and accuse him as acting by a "desire to undercut" rather than a "desire to understand."

First of all, the description that you quoted was about the pro-Hockney movement in general, not any particular person. Second, I have read volumes of information on this topic, including the early correspondence between Hockney and Falco published in Hockney's book. I made my own judgments about Mr. Falco based on all of that material and it is clear to me having read all of this material that he's not primarily concerned with finding the truth about these things or his investigations would have been more rigorous. If you are interested in the subject you are welcome to read the same materials I have and draw your own conclusions, but it seems that you are being critical of my conclusions without checking out the evidence for yourself.

I do not know Falco but I looked up his credentials and I see he has a Chair of Condensed Matter Physics and is also a Professor of Optical Sciences. His educational background, his technical work, his professional affiliations, his awards and honors, do not strike me as being representative of a man for which "logic, truth, and consistency don't matter." 

You can hardly make base such an evaluation just by reading his resume. What would Dr. Stadler's resume look like? Read what Falco wrote about Hockney's theories and their correspondence and I think you'll see why I drew the conclusions that I have.

I have not read Hockney's book -- nor do I intend to -- and I have not studied the facts of his thesis well-enough to know to what degree, if any, his thesis may be true. But when I read articles by physicist Charles Falco I get an entirely different impression of the man than the one that you characterize here. You may ultimately be right in Hockney's thesis being mistaken, but some of your protrayals seem far from objective and undercut your own thesis in this matter.

At least I read the books before drawing my conclusions about what the authors had to say.

--Brian

[stephen_speicher]

At least I read the books before drawing my conclusions about what the authors had to say.

You are more defensively (and wrongfully and insultingly) focused on me and my supposed conclusions of the authors than you are on the actual substance of my post, which was criticism, backed by fact, of what you said in your article, and how you said it. I will just let you be on this issue. Others can judge accordingly.

[MrSubtle]

You are more defensively (and wrongfully and insultingly) focused on me and my supposed conclusions of the authors than you are on the actual substance of my post, which was criticism, backed by fact, of what you said in your article, and how you said it.  I will just let you be on this issue. Others can judge accordingly.

It just seems to me that you are not being very consistent when you on the one hand attack ARC on the grounds that some IOC website mentioned the group a couple of times in minor ways and then defend Falco despite his explicit and long-standing support for Hockney without actually reading any of the relevant material. To make matters worse you criticized me on the grounds that I didn't have sufficient information to have an opinion. I'm happy to discuss my conclusions and the reasons for them, but I must say that the justifications for your criticisms are quite weak and not well founded in fact.

--Brian

[stephen_speicher]

Just to set the record straight:

It just seems to me that you are not being very consistent when you on the one hand attack ARC on the grounds that some IOC website mentioned the group a couple of times in minor ways and then defend Falco despite his explicit and long-standing support for Hockney without actually reading any of the relevant material.

First, you mischaracterize my actions. I did not "attack ARC." I stated clearly that "I am always suspicious of any organization whose Chairman seeks to promote through David Kelley's TOC." A quite justified expression of suspicion does not constitute an "attack."

Second, you misrepresent the "grounds" upon which my suspicion was based. It is not simply that Kelley's TOC "mentioned the group a couple of times in minor ways" as you claim. In both cases TOC implies that they were contacted by ARC, as in "executive director of the Art Renewal Center ... recently wrote Navigator to announce" and "Further news from the art renaissance front came in an August 9 letter to Navigator from ... chairman of the Art Renewal Center." Also, almost one-thousand words of promotion for ARC through Kelley's TOC is hardly just a "minor way."

Third, if I could reasonably be seen to have defended Falco in any way it was only by reference to a few actual facts countering your unsubstantiated character assassination of him.

Fourth, your claim that I defended Falco "without actually reading any of the relevant material" is patently false. I clearly stated that "I read articles by physicist Charles Falco," and those articles included technical debates against David Stork, the person whom you referenced.

Such misrepresentation and statements contrary to fact, all in a single sentence!

To make matters worse you criticized me on the grounds that I didn't have sufficient information to have an opinion.

First, I care about facts, not about your "opinion." Second, my criticism of you was twofold:

1) You used a dubious quote from an undocumented and questionable fourth-party source and did not even qualify the quote as at least the source did. Further, you failed to mention that in the same source that the implication of the quote was outright denied by Falco, based on his first-hand experience.

2) You publicly attributed devious motives to, and claimed unreasonable and dishonest behavior from a man, without providing even a shred of evidence in support. A initial investigation into the background and work of that man by myself revealed an entirely different picture than your unsupported assertions.

I can understand why you do not like my choosing to favor the few facts that I uncovered rather than take your unsubstantiated slurs about that man. Afterall, you have here demonstrated little concern with fact and a greater facility with misrepresentation and unsupported hyperbole and disparagement.