There is more writing surrounding writing and writers than writing surrounding art these days. Recent articles or reviews put forward about the New Museum, the Guggenheim and Jeff Koons have generated large scale discussions on social media sites like Facebook and on important art blogs.
Some of these important art blogs lean a bit to heavily on comedy for me, but that's their style I guess. The recent blog post about Richard Flood from the New Museum comparing Bloggers to various desert animals is another example of writing about writing. Writing about Jerry Saltz is writing about a writer. Writing about Roberta Smith is writing about a writer. Writing about Jeff Koons is writing about art but writing about someone's opinion of Jerry Saltz's opinion of Jeff Koons is not writing about art, that's a writer writing about another writer's opinion of Jerry's Saltz's opinion of Jeff Koons. Facebook comments about John Yau's opinion of Jerry Saltz's opinion of Jeff Koons stretch the dialogue even further but we are still not talking about the art. Blogging about Richard Flood from the New Museum and his opinion of the Facebook friends of Jerry Saltz and Richard's ideas about desert creatures and bloggers is also not writing about the art. Comments on blogs about one's reaction to a blog's critical take on Richard Flood's concept of desert creatures and bloggers is not writing about the art. There are a lot of people out there who are really clued in to what is going on in contemporary art.
Maybe the bloggers and commentators on Facebook should spend the time they are spending talking about writers and Prarie Dog analogies and actually talk more about THE ART. Why does it seem like more writing is about ego clashing than about what we should all be here to do -- write about or talk about the actual contemporary art in question. Is it because writing about egos is more interesting or easier to do than actually deal with the art we should be talking about?