<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: camouflage and/or ambiguity</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.iconophilia.net/camouflage-andor-ambiguity/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.iconophilia.net/camouflage-andor-ambiguity/</link>
	<description>The Contemporary Art Blog from Canberra</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 08:42:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nigel</title>
		<link>http://www.iconophilia.net/camouflage-andor-ambiguity/comment-page-1/#comment-3768</link>
		<dc:creator>Nigel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2010 09:57:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.iconophilia.net/?p=5124#comment-3768</guid>
		<description>Strange to relate, today someone has removed Iconophilia&#039;s  engagement with this work from the wall alongside the painting! Both the original Ian McLean essay, and Iconophilia&#039;s response have been removed. Who is responsible? To what end? To stifle critical debate? Does the posted debate compromise the work of art? There is a relevant art historical precedent for posting a discussion of this kind: some ten years ago Imants Tillers and Gordon Bennett exhibited a protracted discourse as a work of art in the context of an Imants Tillers exhibition at the ANU School of Art Gallery. Let&#039;s see who wants to take responsibility for this action...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Strange to relate, today someone has removed Iconophilia&#8217;s  engagement with this work from the wall alongside the painting! Both the original Ian McLean essay, and Iconophilia&#8217;s response have been removed. Who is responsible? To what end? To stifle critical debate? Does the posted debate compromise the work of art? There is a relevant art historical precedent for posting a discussion of this kind: some ten years ago Imants Tillers and Gordon Bennett exhibited a protracted discourse as a work of art in the context of an Imants Tillers exhibition at the ANU School of Art Gallery. Let&#8217;s see who wants to take responsibility for this action&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: max allen</title>
		<link>http://www.iconophilia.net/camouflage-andor-ambiguity/comment-page-1/#comment-3694</link>
		<dc:creator>max allen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 May 2010 02:14:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.iconophilia.net/?p=5124#comment-3694</guid>
		<description>It always mystifies me why academics fear to tread where reporters go as a matter of course.  Why doesn’t somebody just ASK BENNETT to talk about what he had in mind?  Anybody could just pick up the phone and talk to him.  Doesn’t the artist’s own opinion count?  Or has post-structuralism (or whatever it’s called these days) made the creator’s own views irrelevant?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It always mystifies me why academics fear to tread where reporters go as a matter of course.  Why doesn’t somebody just ASK BENNETT to talk about what he had in mind?  Anybody could just pick up the phone and talk to him.  Doesn’t the artist’s own opinion count?  Or has post-structuralism (or whatever it’s called these days) made the creator’s own views irrelevant?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

