<?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: Ways and Means: What You See Is Not The Same As How You See It</title>
	<atom:link href="http://countercritic.com/2008/02/09/ways-and-means-what-you-see-is-not-the-same-as-how-you-see-it/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://countercritic.com/2008/02/09/ways-and-means-what-you-see-is-not-the-same-as-how-you-see-it/</link>
	<description>Keepin' it real.  Real ugly.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 09:37:58 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=MU</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: countercritic</title>
		<link>http://countercritic.com/2008/02/09/ways-and-means-what-you-see-is-not-the-same-as-how-you-see-it/#comment-715</link>
		<dc:creator>countercritic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Feb 2008 14:50:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://countercritic.com/?p=923#comment-715</guid>
		<description>[2] I am excluding here theses and critical essays in published journals because they literally hypothesize the worth or non-worth of art, and though they go into far greater depth than any newspaper review ever could, they still maintain a need to confirm or negate value. They also tend to focus less on recounting immediate experiences with art than they do on accounting for historical experiences with art.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[2] I am excluding here theses and critical essays in published journals because they literally hypothesize the worth or non-worth of art, and though they go into far greater depth than any newspaper review ever could, they still maintain a need to confirm or negate value. They also tend to focus less on recounting immediate experiences with art than they do on accounting for historical experiences with art.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: countercritic</title>
		<link>http://countercritic.com/2008/02/09/ways-and-means-what-you-see-is-not-the-same-as-how-you-see-it/#comment-714</link>
		<dc:creator>countercritic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Feb 2008 14:50:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://countercritic.com/?p=923#comment-714</guid>
		<description>[1] On the other hand, making predictions of the next big thing can also prove just as much of a bad idea. Such predictions can do more to reaffirm the ego of the critic than the career of the artist. It can also inject all sorts of unnecessary expectations into a culture that should really maintain an open stance to all new work.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[1] On the other hand, making predictions of the next big thing can also prove just as much of a bad idea. Such predictions can do more to reaffirm the ego of the critic than the career of the artist. It can also inject all sorts of unnecessary expectations into a culture that should really maintain an open stance to all new work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
