The Collector

It’s no secret that I like books. In fact, I like books much more than I like reading them. Sure it’s kinda odd to spend so much money on things you never open. But at least my kids (or whoever is unlucky enough to look after my estate) might be able to make some money out of my little collection.

So it should come as no surprise that, last week, I made my usual pilgrimages to Browsers in Hamilton and to Parsons in Auckland. And I spent some money. And I discovered that Parsons have sold five of the six books of mine they had – with the sixth one on hold. But I wanna know who bought them ... and why.

Jodi was kind enough to take me to a second-hand bookshop in Tauranga too. I made her by Robin Morrison’s Sense of Place. Naturally I bought some books there too.

The most exciting find was the long sought after The New Color Photography for a lot less than I expected to pay for it.

No good home should be without the three volume 1966 An Encyclopaedia of New Zealand, and now, thanks to the Ministry for Culture and Heritage (three Indian typists and $20,000) no good home need be without it, and you can still find the book version around too.

When I got home I went shopping again, and ended up with this lot. I bought the Samuel Butler cos I really liked the cover. It’s one of those books I’ve long meant to read and now I have my own copy I may get around to it one day.

And then yesterday this turned up in the post box. Cool. Thanks Auckland University Press.

This is due out on September 10. With any luck I’ll have the review done by then.

Speaking of reviews, this one has turned up. And David pointed out the nice comments on this review from ages ago. I haven’t responded but have written this.

Thank you Linda and Matt for your comments.

I would like to point out that
1) I do not purport to be an art expert, merely someone very interested in art.
2) I have never suggested that a review is a 'serious critique'.
3) I have never been to art school.

Reviewing is about OPINIONS, and are written so that others may get an IDEA of what the publication/movie/album/show/etc. is like. The reader does not have to agree with the reviewer. The reader can actually form their own OPINION.

It is called “reviewing” because it involves someone offering their own view after having read/seen/heard what they are reviewing. It should not be confused with previewing which involves someone offering their own view generally prior to actually having read/seen/heard what they are previewing.

If reviewing was supposed to be serious critiquing it would be called a critique. I do find it ironic that you dismiss my review by stating that “[o]ne cannot seriously critique a work on their own personal likes and dislikes”, when the lack of objective critiquing of Buchanan’s work was my main problem with the book. And, I suspect, you are doing the exactly the same – basing your view of the book and this review on your own taste, not an objective critique.

I also find it interesting that you are happy to attack me, but make no attempt to argue against the statements/points in my review where I express the failings of this publication. I stated up front that I did not like his art but that didn't stop me attempting to write a balanced piece about the book, as I believe I have done with all of the reviews I have written.

You ask “what has the creator of the work set out to do?, and, How well have they achieved that aim?” Well, I thought I made it quite clear that I found the book clumsy and confused and I couldn't work out exactly what they had set out to do. Therefore they failed.

Can I ask this? What is the point of a book about an artist which doesn't examine the artist's work, that doesn’t explain why they produce the work they do, or talk about more than the surface imagery? Why, when so much of the text is biographical detail, does it miss out a large chunk of Buchanan's life and career as an artist? If this is an attempt at an artist survey why are the works not properly captioned to allow the reader some sense of the artist’s evolution?

I stand by everything in my review, maybe if you re-read it you'll see that I explained my disappointments and was actually hoping to be swayed in my view of Buchanan arts. The fact that I wasn't, I feel, reflects more on the book than it does on me.

It seems churlish to say this, but not everyone has to like the same things, people can legitimately hold differing views. The fact that you disagree with me is your prerogative, but why attack me? Why not attack my message? Clearly you hold a different view to me, yet you make no attempt at argument, resorting to mere invective which really isn’t worthy of this response.

Not sure if I’ll post it there or not. Not sure they’re worth it. But it feels good to write a nicely reasoned ‘up yours’.

So not only am I a collector of books and rejection letters, I am also a collector of online abuse. I am just like so 21st Century, dude.