To the editors:
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
References to “shockingly irresponsible artists” doing “all kinds of crass, undignified, ‘inhuman’ things” obscures the work with the critic’s judgements instead. These tend to present the audience with unsolicited impressions of a defensive and intolerant personality. Why should any past or future audience entertain the notion of what Mr. Hayford approves as “responsible” art?
I only bother to comment on the rest of the review because it unwittingly implicates me personally and unfairly as witness to support its negative conclusions. I must take issue with the premise of audience participation described as “most offensive of all,” in which a crown was placed on my head. I was not, by my own reckoning if Mr. Hayford will allow it, “made a fool,” nor was my “dignity entirely ignored.” Rather, I felt engaged and included in an exposition interpreted as a valuable and artistically credible rendering of every couple’s entirely human foibles in the home and ever corrupt world.
W. Fullerton
