This message was self-deleted by its author

[MrModerate]

187. Interesting. I just ran across this response so we might be out of sequence . . .

But your response above is also silly.

And here's why: Your use of the term 'Philistines' shows us that you deny the sincere responses of anyone who doesn't share your view of aesthetics. Please don't try to tell us that there's only one valid aesthetic model, or we will be fully justified in ignoring you entirely.

We don't poo-poo your defense of this work because we think everyone's opinion is equally valid (I'm happy to state categorically that your opinion doesn't hold a candle to mine), although any viewer's response to the piece should be respected, since response is what art is all about.

You have no way of knowing that those who criticize the piece 'don't understand' it. I think most of us understand it quite well, and dismiss it as trivial self-aggrandizement. The fact of the matter is that the piece (and the artist) are self-trivializing and those of us who dismiss her work don't really have to do any heavy lifting in that department.

'Political protest?' Please. To the degree that there is a political element to this work is is extremely slight and obvious to the point of ridiculousness.

And, while there are quite possibly some sexist comments in this thread (which the artist has deliberately courted by explicitly stating 'I'm going to confront you with my vagina'), most of the comments I've looked at consider the piece on its (rather meagre) merits.

Sometimes bad art is just bad art.