We are at a disadvantage in this thing. His ideas, although wrong were new ideas; thus, they made news. When experts prove his ideas wrong, it can never be as exciting or interesting for the world to basically hear, "Oh, never mind. Things were as you previously thought,
Hockney was wrong". This is the prevailing trouble with combating the press and the modern art factory. The wierd stuff is great for the newpapers. It's sensational. That is all they really want. Events or ideas to upset the logical prevalent mind-set. The world reads magazines far more often than textbooks.
When we say, "You know the king really is naked, abstract art really is just as pointless as you have always thought," that simply confirms the people's reasonable, original assumptions. These confirmations are not nearly so sexy, silly or outrageous as much that is being declared art. The essence of this battle (for fleeting press) is between reason and ridicule.
We must hold fast to the idea that it's not the temporal newsprint we want to win but the hard back volumes. The majority of people I've met think abstract art is a self-serving commercial joke. I tell them so, and then they feel okay agreeing. The press want outlandishness, and there will always be a small group of attention-hungry folks happy to deliver. Some will believe what they read just as some believe "pro wrestling" is real. We don't really want those hearts and minds anyway.
