48. On disappointing work

Unpublished
13 February 1997

Re: McMichael shows miss the mark - 13 February. In this latest effort, after questioning the curatorial qualifications of the McMichael employees (“we wonder what they know about art” or what they think art really is) John B. Mays retreats once again to the conceits of bad journalism where contemplating what might or might not be appropriate is magically decided by a byline and a simple declaration.
Though Globe editors have faithfully been impressed by Mr. Mays’ affectations and public pursuits of connoisseurship, among his contemporary art discourse peers Mays is known for always missing “the relevant” and barely managing to trip over “the obviously good.” John Bentley Mays should therefore not be giving lectures on the public display of “disappointing work.” Mr. Mays’ well-proven ability as an art critic to disappoint has far exceeded anything the four reviewed artists could ever hope to match.
Mr. Mays complains of “shabby canons.” If the Globe and Mail were held to the same high standards that Mays disingenously expects from artists and art galleries, had your paper been expected to publish only “the best” in domestic contemporary art criticism, then, by definition, Mr. Mays work would rarely have been published.