That said, there does exist, at least in the arts in the United States, a conscious division between art that is political-identity focused, and that which is purely sensual or aesthetic. And the last line of your review (“But the main spell of “Accounting for Customs” is of a beauty that transcends any socio-cultural message. “) succinctly places you on one side of this division.

When I was discussing your review with an art curator friend of mine, who generally takes the other side of the argument, she even anticipated and said, “He didn’t use the word “transcend,” did he?” That word has particular resonance to those who feel there are people who resist absorbing political realities in art that is intentionally addressing racial issues. My friend pointed out a great example of this in her criticsm of the Guggenheim’s Mapplethorpe exhibition of a few years back that compared his photographs with classical figurative art. Her disagreement with the show was that is reduced Mapplethorpe’s work, which was shocking for its depiction of black and gay eroticism, to simple form, or, at the very least, attempted to defend his work by focusing on its formal conceipts while allowing the potentially inflamatory political realities to takea back seat.

It just seemed to us that you were escaping dealing with the explicit political nature of “Accounting for Customs.” That’s all.

And, that said, we appreciate your participation in C.C. You’re kind of a celebrity around here, if somewhat of an invented nemesis. Keep things kickin’ at The Times. We’re definitely paying attention.

xoxoC.C.

If you think I try to avoid political issues (I hope you don’t, but your own meaning is hard to elicit from your prose), check out some of my “FT” reviews of plays about Harold Pinter’s “Ashes to Ashes”, the “Guantanamo:Honor Bound to Defend Freedom” docudrama, the “Bloody Sunday” Scenes from the Saville Inquiry” docudrama, the “Color of Justice” docudrama about the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, etc., all of which I admired both as politics and drama. I just don’t think “Accounting for Customs”, which I so much liked, was interesting primarily as politics. Sorry if this is a problem for you.

All best,

Alastair Macaulay