Mark Bernstein took what should have been an internal communication and made it an act of public dissension by sending a tendentious and misleading statement to everybody in his address book. The ELO’s response was, if anything, generous. Meanwhile, over on his own blog–which, incidentally, doesn’t allow for comments–Bernstein resorts to ad hominen attack. So I ask again: what are the real motives here?

This is turning into a note from myself to myself, which I will use as a basis for another post about the conference.

I try not to take sides in conflicts to which I’m not party, and I’ve a strong distaste for academic/artistic politics in general. (By politics, here, I mean negotiation that stems from usually negative emotions and is not explicitly meant to be constructive.) But I do agree with you: Mark’s making this public was not a good move. That’s only one of the problems I have with his letter. It is in no way constructive. We need constructive. You don’t like the way things are done? Propose *concrete* alternatives, and here’s the trick: do this with enough tact to not antagonize people. (Dale Carnegie had a good point, really. True, lasting influence does not exist in an atmosphere charged with personal conflict.) If the majority dissents, there is nothing you can do but sit back and watch the consequences unfold. Someone will be wrong, we will learn from our mistakes and hone our subjective views. But subjectivity, in itself, is not evil. Its salt is in the application.