Bizarre review of Objectified

I read this Washington Post article, and I was confused. Then I was disappointed. Now I’m confused again. In any event, I’m not too proud to not share an unfavorable review for Objectified. It seems to me that the format of the review is terribly confusing, that paired with the authors neglect to accurately reflect the intentions of the artists kindof baffled me.

In any event, you can read the article here.

One thought on “Bizarre review of Objectified

  1. Gabriel

    Ok just read the Post article. WTF!?! Girl can write, but the format is horrible. She tried something and failed miserably. A straight forward review of two shows would have been much better. The world cup bit was a piss poor attempt to be timely, but made what would be otherwise decent writing seem immature. Also, the needless head-to-head of art and design showed her inner-novice as an art critic. Nothing profound here. I guess I instinctively knew from the first paragraph. It was tough to get through the whole article. In applying the metaphor, why would a jewelry show be the art team rather than the design team? Let’s compare a granny smith to a red delicious, only it will sound better if we call the red delicious an orange. lol. I wouldn’t sweat the review too much. Any press is good press, right?

    Cheers,
    -Gabriel

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *