(Spokesperson says the Commission has no comment till it determines if it’s going to keep the legal ball rolling with an appeal.) That’s a fact. If the Commission doesn’t have to follow its own rules, why have them? People like to bemoan the existence of lawsuits, but they provide a means for individuals to contest an injustice handed down by a bureaucracy. <\/p>\n Judge Hicks’ writing is a pleasure. If he tires of his role as adjudicator, he could be a contender as an art theorist. He could have simply noted the Commission’s nonexistent legal position. Instead, he waded into the tricky ground of aesthetics. I especially appreciate his astute use of poetry to bolster his position. Well played, Judge Hicks.<\/p>\n
<\/i><\/p>\n
<\/i><\/div>\n
\nKogan, Vanity, all is Vanity (Self-Portrait) Medium: Lithograph
\non silk tissue
\nSize: 18″x18″<\/i><\/p>\n![\"simonkoganvanity.jpg\"](\"http:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/anotherbb\/simonkoganvanity.jpg\")
The culling process was not capricious. The Commission assembled a panel to go through everybody’s slides. Kogan was eliminated because the panel felt his work was “not cohesive.” (The panel got that right.) Kogan objected, pointing out that cohesion was not part of the criteria for inclusion. <\/p>\n