I do agree with you that good itself will come out of consideration of this situation.

However, Grapho, you left out a phrase that is important to understanding my viewpoint:

"The misspellings pull people away from her work and to that critical area of editing..."

I think I could have improved my meaning by adding the word 'instead'. Read this adjustment:

"The misspellings pull people away from her work and instead to that critical area of editing..."

You copied and pasted without the phrase that I think explained my point, and I quote your quote of me (without the critical phrase) below:

"The misspellings pull people away from her work --
and I don't think that's what she wants her work to do"


I do not imply that the misspellings categorically pull people away from her work. I do imply that in the process of editing (automatic editing as a result of our instant editing capacity), people are pulled from the immediate impact of the work itself because their minds are busily and automatically editing. It's an act comparable (on a much smaller scale) to that of considering a lovely woman, beautifully dressed, who smiles and reveals a plug of spinach caught between her front teeth. (That's an old tale, but it illustrates my meaning. Off topic: I remember someone retelling this illustration in such a way that you fell in love with this lovely woman who had such zest for life that you'd give her her spinach and a plug of tomato, too! )

I argue with your point just because it concerns your taking part of a quote and jumping to another point, thereby showing a direct relationship between one thing and another, when, instead, I meant that one result (specifically, people's not thinking about her work directly) had been caused by something not directly related to the work itself at large (the critical act of editing those spelling errors). Sloppy editing caused her work not to be taken immediately for what it was, whatever that was. If I were in her shoes, I'd be embarrassed, but, then again, I'm inordinately embarrassed to make any kind of editing error in formal work. And I consider a completed work of art to be a formal work, at least in the case of an expensive museum piece.

Maybe I shouldn't have written about this at all. I was just trying to step into the shoes of the Artist at Large, and through empathetic capacity imagine what it would be like to realize that my audience was editing my spelling when, in fact, I wanted the audience to consider my point. It's probably a fool's errand to try to understand hypothetical beings since the hypothetical beings that we all live with have so little relationship to the hypothetical beings that live within others. We're hypothetical strangers living in hypothetically foreign caves...at least when considering professions that are realistically foreign to us. I'm a bit idiotic considering at all what it is like to be a visual artist since I bore myself in two minutes flat trying to draw any object, any design, any visual conception at all. Forgive my idiotic plunging into the world of art. I am very much (and obviously) out of my depth.

Hope this helps. Probably not. But I tried.