Trouble In Mind

Please meet the two men who want to take over the Art Lantern:

Received April 17^th 2017 from Michael Ramstedt:

“Seduced By Poison”

I truly hope everyone enjoys this read. In their own way. I know its REALLY long . . . (So it might take Derek a couple of weeks to get through it) . . .But I very much enjoyed permitting myself to do so. It was very therapeutic. And artsy and clever in its own way. Even if it is a little low brow, crass, crude and mean . . . its still “inventive”. And true. And truth is beauty.

And beauty is truth, sir.

And I think, I am due at least this, at this point. For my time and bother. . . . 6 months of utter ridiculousness . . .time stolen from me . . . and just the misfortune of having to have met and deal with this man in the first place . . which my dear friend Amy would call . . . “Seduced By Poison”. . . And well . . .Derek Guthrie has lead to a LOT of people to “vent at length” about him, over the years. Thats a fact.

And you all know by now, how much I love to write :-). And one day, if i ever do make my mark there, in any way, it will be something in non-fiction or fiction and probably nothing at all related to the arts. Just good story telling. And I have lots and lots of stories to tell. Real. And imagined. And probably now Derek inspired, too. lol He will definitely show up in some of the characters I write. Or at least some of the worst parts of them. He is almost a Grecian theatrical figure, in a way. Or Shakespearean? A classic “archetype” (See Don Quixote reference, below)

Email Side Game —–> Which Shakespearean character does Derek Guthrie most reflect. (I am curious. Please email me your responses privately and I will tell the whole group later (individually) what the consensus was. . . Just for a little fun here)

On an ironic note . . . I was the one who actually recruited Bruce Thorn. Thats part of what I do for living. “Locate talent”. And i have a great eye for writers. Being one, myself.

If Bruce understood ALL of the details of what has occurred here and why, and didn’t buy into Derek’s lies, probably wouldn’t have written the email that he did. Or have whatever false comprehension of the “entire” situation he has.

But as we all know. Thats Derek’s “Speciality of the house”: Lies. And “Lying by Omission”. Hang on . . .word game fun starts . . . NOW

Lying by omission, otherwise known as exclusionary detailing, is lying by either omitting certain facts or by failing to correct a misconception. In the case of the former, an example of this would be a car salesman claiming a car to have amazing fuel economy while neglecting to mention that it has no engine and is completely immobile. In the case of the latter, it could be a situation in which a misconception exists that the claimant is aware of but fails to correct, such as a person who wanders around a hospital dressed as a doctor, offering treatment while failing to mention that she is in fact just getting a kick out of pretending to be a doctor

—————

Derek,

I would highly suggest you and Daniel quit defaming me publicly.

de·fame

dəˈfām/

verb

gerund or present participle: defaming

• damage the good reputation of (someone); slander or libel.“he claimed that the article defamed his family”

synonyms:

libel, slander, malign, cast aspersions on, smear, traduce, give someone a bad name, run down, speak ill of, vilify, besmirch, stigmatize, disparage, denigrate, discredit, decry

On social media. Or in any other format or method. Outright lying about me personally and/or my intentions is highly unethical.

un·eth·i·cal

ˌənˈeTHək(ə)l/

adjective

• not morally correct.“it is unethical to torment any creature for entertainment”

synonyms:

immoral, amoral, unprincipled, unscrupulous, dishonorable, dishonest, wrong, deceitful, unconscionable, unfair, fraudulent, underhanded, wicked, evil, sneaky, corrupt;

And highly unprofessional.

un·pro·fes·sion·al

ˌənprəˈfeSH(ə)n(ə)l/

adjective

• below or contrary to the standards expected in a particular profession.“a report on unprofessional conduct”

synonyms:

improper, unethical, unprincipled, unscrupulous, dishonorable, disreputable, unseemly, unbecoming, indecorous

What you have posted recently on FB isn’t even remotely me. Remotely my intentions. Or even what remotely happened here.

Its mostly just the self-serving fantasy

fan·ta·sy

ˈfan(t)əsē/

noun

1.

• the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable.“his research had moved into the realm of fantasy”

synonyms:

imagination, fancy, invention, make-believe

of your paranoid mind. Its WELL known you are a paranoid

par·a·noid

ˈperəˌnoid/

adjective

1.

• of, characterized by, or suffering from the mental condition of paranoia.

And your inability to properly grasp “reality”. And to help you form false narratives

“A false narrative is one in which a complete narrative pattern is perceived in a given situation, but it is not an actual narrative at work in the situation. The perception of a false narrative can be due to insufficient or inaccurate information or to insufficient or inaccurate assessment. The creation of a false narrative can be due to naturally occurring narrative patterns, transient contextual framing, inadvertent presentation or intentional deception.”

that make you “the victim”. 🙁

(poor misunderstood, under appreciated, maligned Derek)

vic·tim

ˈviktəm/

noun

• a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.

synonyms:

sufferer, injured party, casualty

Which is what you have been doing your whole life. And not ever being able to really take responsibility

re·spon·si·bil·i·ty

rəˌspänsəˈbilədē/

noun

• the state or fact of having a duty to deal with something or of having control over someone.“women bear children and take responsibility for child care”

synonyms:

authority, control, power, leadership

for your own actions. Or the things you have done to hurt and damage

Definition of damage

• 1: loss or harm resulting from injury to person, property, or reputation

so many people over the years.

And that has been the case for 43 years with you and this windmill.

“The story follows the adventures of an hidalgo named Mr. Alonso Quixano who reads so many chivalric romances that he loses his sanity and decides to set out to revive chivalry, undo wrongs, and bring justice to the world, under the name Don Quixote de la Mancha. He recruits a simple farmer, Sancho Panza, as his squire, who often employs a unique, earthy wit in dealing with Don Quixote’s rhetorical orations on antiquated knighthood. Don Quixote, in the first part of the book, does not see the world for what it is and prefers to imagine that he is living out a knightly story”

—-> I am not the first cowhand in this rodeo . Or the first person you have pissed on. And this was Jane’s idea, not yours. You just glommed on to her reflected glory

“Basking in reflected glory (BIRGing) is a self-serving cognition whereby an individual associates themselves with known successful others such that the winner’s success becomes the individual’s own accomplishment. The affiliation of another’s success is enough to stimulate self glory.”

Funny, that a guy, who was never really accepted by the arts world . .(and I am sure that STINGS!!) . . . would accuse me of “not impressing the arts world” . . .

1. That was never my intention 2. I don’t care. 3. The “arts world” isn’t a few hundred people in your corner of FB, LMAO!!!!!

I am just a real estate salesperson who likes to enjoy the arts. And has a girlfriend who is an artist. So our activities and friends became mostly other artists. And art events. Thats pretty much it. Its as far as that goes. lol . . . . not an deeper . . . I am not “Lex Luther”, your “arts enemy” (insert pun here)

I think you have a deep seated inferiority complex, because you were rejected.

in·fe·ri·or·i·ty com·plex

noun

• an unrealistic feeling of general inadequacy caused by actual or supposed inferiority in one sphere, sometimes marked by aggressive behavior in compensation.

and a love/hate . . . passive/aggressive condition regarding your ego, the art community and the meaning of your existence. They never accepted you. You cant get over that. 30-40 years later. Brutal, but true.

And the idea that you think we are trying to turn the NAE into a PR machine? And my desire to make millions? Please. I think you need some meds. This publication has never even been remotely solvent. For over 30 years. Just free volunteer time from people you use until they get tired of you and/or you throw them away. And look for new people to use.

I think you have a sociopathic way of looking at others: Like “chess pieces”

so·ci·o·path

ˈsōsēōˌpaTH/

noun

• a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.

The best we could do here is try and make this thing solvent. Where staffers and writers actually get paid. And it is self sufficient and can grow. That was our only true goal regarding $$ and we figured that would take a year or so. At least. Not an easy task. Or a fun one.

paid

pād/

1.

• past and past participle of pay1.

adjective

1.

• (of work or leave) for or during which one receives pay.

And the NAE resembles something more of an “actual publication” and not a “club newsletter” . . .”read by 200 people” . . . . And the only thing Michel, Thom Feldhacker, Tom Mullaney or anyone else, including myself, has ever tried to do, is to protect the integrity of this publication and its mission and legacy. JANE’S MISSION AND LEGACY. Even if it meant having to protect it from you, Derek.

Its not like we were here for fame, glory or money. This is kind of a dry well, for that kind of thing. No errl.

Turn it into a “banal PR machine?” Thats hilarious. . . .Nurse!!! . . .more meds!, STAT!!

All I ever wanted to do was to help out a little forgotten arts magazine in my spare time .and enjoy myself with a new activity and some new friends. Thats it. It has devolved into dealing with one of the worst people i think i have ever met. In 48 years. Falsely pretending

pre·tend

prəˈtend/

verb

gerund or present participle: pretending

1.

• speak and act so as to make it appear that something is the case when in fact it is not.“I closed my eyes and pretended I was asleep”

synonyms:

make as if, profess, affect

to be someone else. Who seems to care

care

ker/

noun

1.

• the provision of what is necessary for the health, welfare, maintenance, and protection of someone or something.“the care of the elderly”

synonyms:

safekeeping, supervision, custody, charge, protection, control, responsibility

for no one except himself.

I honestly don’t think you even care about Jane’s legacy. Not one bit. I think you just care about yours. You are simply one of the most single vainest people

vain

vān/

adjective

1.

• having or showing an excessively high opinion of one’s appearance, abilities, or worth.“their flattery made him vain”

synonyms:

conceited, narcissistic, self-loving, in love with oneself, self-admiring, self-regarding, self-obsessed, egocentric, egotistic, egotistical;

I have ever met. Its a truly “low brow” human quality. Very unimpressive

un·im·pres·sive

ˌənimˈpresiv/

adjective

• evoking no admiration or respect; not striking.

The board requested that I no longer engage you or any other members of the NAE publicly. Outside permission granted by the board. Which is both the proper and professional thing to do here. So I agreed.

And I also apologized for doing so previously. Which is funny. Because I never posted a single thing about you. I only responded after you posted something first. Which you have never apologized for. And haven’t even stopped doing.

I wouldn’t make a post on my personal wall calling out someone else like that. And certainly not you. Thats not only ridiculous. Its the worst social media manners on the planet. High school kids don’t even do that kind of behavior. “Too mature” already.

And Daniel’s shitty false personal post about Michel, that prompted its deletion and Daniels removal as an admin or editor of the FB page was equally ill mannered. This is like “10 year old” behavior.

And both Daniel and you requested, in good faith, a ceasefire, as part of ongoing resolution talks between members of the NAE. So I told everyone “Good Luck”

And I have stood by this promise. I haven’t said one word. Despite you starting to post defamatory stuff. AGAIN.

And you, yourself, even said a few times the last few weeks . . . “Now is the time to quit with the insults. Now is the time to quit calling each other names. Now is the time to try to work something out” . . .

Were you just bullshitting?

I think YES . . . because apparently you are an expert liar

li·ar

ˈlī(ə)r/

noun

• a person who tells lies.

synonyms:

deceiver, fibber, perjurer, false witness, fabricator, equivocator

and a world class hypocrite

hyp·o·crite

ˈhipəˌkrit/

noun

• a person who indulges in hypocrisy.

synonyms:

pretender, dissembler, deceiver, liar, pietist, sanctimonious person

They also asked me not to contact you in any way. Period. During the resolution proceedings. But i feel, after your most recent posts, and an obvious disinterest and unwillingness to work out any kind of resolution with everyone else involved, I feel compelled and at liberty to do so, at this time.

I really don’t want some kind of “personal war” with you, for the rest of your life, Derek. Thats not what i signed up for 6 months ago when i first met you. Before i learned what NAE really was. And who YOU really were. And before all the countless lies you told me. All the way down to the children you lied to me about not existing.

ex·ist

iɡˈzist/

verb

1.

• have objective reality or being.“remains of these baths still exist on the south side of the Pantheon”
  

  synonyms:

  live, be alive, be living

As far as i am concerned, you are a fraud. You enticed me into a fraud. And you fraudulently wasted my time. And now you are trying to defraud me publicly

fraud

frôd/

noun

• wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.“he was convicted of fraud”
  

  synonyms:

  fraudulence, cheating, swindling, embezzlement, deceit, deception, double-dealing, chicanery, sharp practice; More

  • a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.“mediums exposed as tricksters and frauds”

synonyms:

impostor, fake, sham, charlatan, quack, mountebank

I want the last 6 months of my life back. I wan’t to have never met you.

Derek Guthrie. Con Man.

con man

ˈkän man/

noun

informal

• a man who cheats or tricks someone by gaining their trust and persuading them to believe something that is not true.

I dont want a war with you Derek. But if you want one, we can do that. I can collect all of the nasty nasty nasty stories people have related to me about you and their experiences with you, over the years, and publish them online for the whole world to see. You’d be surprised how many people I have spoken to. And what they have told me. And what people will say behind your back.

And you would be really surprised how many people approached me on their own. Some, just to warn me.

Even a woman at the Christmas Party approached me and then personally warned me about you. And told me her “Sad Experience with Derek” Story. How do you like that?. How terrible is that that someone comes to a Christmas Party and they haven’t seen you in years and all they have to discuss with me is “how horrible you were?”

Thats “Trump Level” sadness.

(That seems to be a situation which has happened with quite regularity)

Years later, they still haven’t forgotten what you put them through. And thats their definition of you. So very many people like her out there . . . walking around. You have left bodies everywhere.

I’d be more then happy to take what i am writing here in these emails, professionally edit it, create a nice finished piece . . . and send it to every publication and media on planet earth. With the rights to re-print or use in any way they feel. As you can see, I am pretty good at this. The world is a big place. The internet is huge. And it will never forget . . .

I imagine more then a few arts magazines or arts related people would love to read what I could write about you. Now. And long after you are gone. Maybe for nostalgia. Or notoriety. Or just because “its part of all the collected information”.

Do you really want this massive sub text, in the “Who was Derek?” story?. I don’t think it would serve any purpose other then to expose some of the worst flaws about you, to the world and lessen their opinion of you, overall. And tarnish your legacy. As people put two and two together and realized why this magazine never actually became anything.

YOU.

I honestly see no upside for you, with it.

You;d be better off spending the rest of your time here doing whats best for the magazine to grow and have something positive to be remembered by. Thats why it shocked me so much when you refused to try and work something out with Michel and Thom and Tom and the rest of the Chicago group.Over the last 2 months or so.

And I can keep going after you long after you are gone, too. No problem.

If you are interested in all of this being part of your “permanent legacy”, long after you’re dead . .and having a war with me until you are dead, then just keep posting crap about me. Give me no other choice.

If Daniel keeps posting or sharing defamatory stuff, I will just consider its the “same as you.”

Keep your dog on its leash, bro.

And keep being the bully, Derek. I dont like bullies. I dont respond well to bullying. It makes me the worst bully. Ever. (As you can plainly see)

bul·ly1

ˈbo͝olē/

noun

1.

• a person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker.

synonyms:

persecutor, oppressor, tyrant, tormentor, intimidator; More

verb

1.

• use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.“a local man was bullied into helping them”

synonyms:

persecute, oppress, tyrannize, browbeat, harass, torment, intimidate, strong-arm, dominate

I really have nothing to lose here, Derek. Personally. I am just a common real estate salesperson. Not even a blip on the radar. Its a short life. And then I will die. lol. There isn’t going to be any “legacy” about me for others to look back on or read about. Or any magazine attached to my name. (And I honestly don’t care). I don’t have your outsized ego issues. Or fear of mortality complex.

If you seriously want to tarnish both yourself and this publication, permanently I have no problem helping you achieve that goal. No skin off of my nose. At all.

You can spend your remaining years in a negative, confrontational, combative state of being, with me. And other people. If that’s what flips your light switch. And you think thats a quality use of whatever time you have left. Its YOUR life. You get to decide.

I found this email (below) I wrote 6 weeks ago shortly after you pooped in your pants and started throwing a tantrum like screaming 2 year old. Right about the time you started shitting on one of your oldest friends and colleagues in the NAE, Michel Segard

Remember that guy? The one who suffered through agonizing cancer treatment while helping you develop and put this publication together?

Or did you think it was a magic fairy wearing a beret or something?

Remember , , ,THE ONE WHO WAS LEGITIMATELY RIGHT about the cartouche BREAKING PUBLICATION MISSION AND ETHICS. Your . . . OWN rules?

Newsflash, Derek —-> People are Individuals. With real value. Made of flesh and bone. Hearts and minds. Thoughts and feelings. Blood. Guts. They deserve respect and justice. Every single last one. Not your flippant self-concerned . . . “I dont give a rats ass”

Quit being such a sociopath. And so thoughtless of others.

How about Tom Mullaney? Remember that guy? Another long term friend and colleague of the NAE? Did you even ever give a shit about him or the time, effort, energy and emotion he put in? We all know the answer to that one: “NO”.

Why?: “You don’t care about anyone but yourself”.

If THAT is the defining statement of Derek’ Guthrie’s life and the way so many people will remember him . . .that is one sad ass thing, indeed. Who cares about what someone leaves behind. We are all ash and forgotten, in the end. Its who you WERE while you were here .. that is the only thing that has any intrinsic value or meaning. Of any kind.

I think if I were you, . . .I would spend the rest of my days being really really nice to people to make up for the countless times I was really really shitty to people. Just to try and at least make up for some of it. While i was still here

Be a man of love. Not a man of hate. Hate is ugly. It makes you ugly.

I still think the email below is still relevant. And I still think its the truth

M

———— February 23rd —————-

“What would Jane Do?

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Michael Ramstedt <michaelxxxxxx1@xxxxx.com> wrote:

Honestly?

I think Derek is severely mentally ill. I think we have all known this for some time. I think Derek is even aware of this in his more lucid moments. And he has also admitted as much before. Incapable of making even the most basic decisions for himself or this publication.

I spent a lot of one on one personal time with Derek while he was here. This is my personal conclusion.

I don’t mean this as a joke or some kind of callous personal attack. I mean this as a clinical observation. The 800 lb gorilla in the corner no one wants to really talk about. And it has seemingly infected Daniel at this point. I don’t mean that as a joke or personal attack either. We have a saying in Chicago . . . “It is what it is”.

Combine mental illness and an oversized ego and you get all sorts of terrible things. Like . . . Donald Trump . . . (just kidding, not kidding)

He is obviously unable to even read the emails we have been sending back and forth or fully comprehend the points I have made. Or Michel has made. Or even seems aware of how much work we are doing. Or even appreciates it. Or how critical it is to the existence of this publication right now

Really? He’s going to push Michel out, which will push me out which will push Thom out and . . .what? Just leave Tom M and Annie in Chicago? And Tom M already left as “U.S Editor”

Annie can’t even tie her own shoes. Seriously.

I think if we really cared about Derek, and really cared about what happens to the NAE we would contain him. And make this happen. Whether he likes it or not. In accordance with what he first asked me to do when I firstmet him back in October.

1. Save the NAE legacy

2. Bring it forward into the future

As I said in a previous email, I do believe we need to “save Derek from himself”

This whole situation is sad and tragic beyond words.

Please let me remind everyone, that from a legal standpoint, Derek cant actually remove Michel. Or disband the group in Chicago. Or rule as king. As much as Derek or Daniel like to fantasize about how a publisher has ultimate control of a magazine that is attached to a non profit with officers and a board, they are wholly wrong. On both a legal and ethical level. Its just not done that way. In the real world.

I think this has been Derek’s problem his whole life. And I think has been the problem of the NAE its whole existence. And why 5 previous boards have tried to coup Derek. He wants to be king. When his royal guard protests. “Justifiably” . . . .He chases them away. Makes up a sad story about how they “victimized him”

I think my friend who warned me not to do this due to “Derek’s drama” was right. He said “Derek was addicted to drama”. Or as we also say in Chicago “Drama Mama”. This particular guy has worked with Derek before on the publication. I didn’t know that before calling him. It was just a random reach out. When I asked him if he wanted to help re-build the NAE he is essentially told me “I’d rather stick a sharp object in my eye”

I think this, last time, #6, is the death of this publication. Derek is not going to find another Thom, Mike and Michel to do what we are doing. And then, he’s probably going to die.

And I am sorry if that sounds really mean and cold to any of you, but thats the g-d truth here.

This really is his “last shot”. He was barely capable of functioning his last visit here. And it doesn’t sound like he wants to come back again? . . . .

“Suffered bad temper and abuse?” . .How? the very nice Christmas party I threw together for him and paid of out of my own pocket? . . . his old friend Michel who let him live with him and pushed himself beyond normal human limits to help make this happen? . . the camaraderie of everyone who gathered around him while he was here to put this together? . .All the hours i spent hanging out with him or driving him around?

I’d say more “Derek is being an ungrateful, selfish, prick” and “doesn’t actually deserve us”

Harsh. True.

And he was exceptionally lucky to find the 3 of us, for various reasons. And almost all by accident. And old friend, Michel, previously from the magazine. Highly talented . . . . Thom, a local waiter who just happened to have an MBA and a mensa IQ . . . . .and Mike, some guy with an exceptionally experienced background who came late to an arts fartsy discussion that his girlfriend asked him to go to

Derek called out to the universe. The universe smiled back. I’d say thats “one lucky bastard”. Others might call it “providence”

And if I decided to not go to the meeting at all, this probably wouldn’t have even happened at all or gotten to this point

Derek got very very very lucky here how this played out in Chicago. It almost never did.

“Looking for new friends”

We ARE his friends.

So the question here . . . . . .

Do we walk away? Let the mentally ill king . . . “off with our heads” . . . . And good chance this dies? Or do we actually come together as “Derek’s friends” . .and “Defenders of the NAE realm”. Whats the most ethical thing to do?

What would Jane do? What would she think if she was hear right now to see what was going on? With this particular group of people right now? And Derek where he is, right now? I don’t know, having never met her. But I am sure some of you do . . .

Thanks,

Mike

………………………………………………………………..

Received March 9^th 2017 from Michel Ségard

Dear Derek,

We have known each other for 43 years; your were my teacher and mentor both for painting and for critical writing on aesthetics. And during the 70s and 80s we became good friends. You know that I share your vision of reviving the Art Lantern as an open forum for the serious discussion of art critical thought in our time. I also share with you the desire to dedicate this project to the memory of Jane Addams Allen, whose idea it was in the first place in 1973.

Both of us have gone through serious medical issues in the recent past that may have colored our behavior toward one another—I with my cancer and you with your precarious mental state and deteriorating physical condition. It is clear that neither of us can bring this project to fruition alone. We need each other to make it a success.

In that spirit, I propose that we reconcile our differences and negotiate a mutually acceptable working relationship. Below I have set out a series of points that we can use as a start to establishing a well balanced long-term relationship between the U.S. and UK operations.

It is a little complicated since you are operating under a for-profit corporate structure in the UK, and we in the U.S., are strictly not-for-profit. That automatically requires an arrangement that amounts to a contract between the two organizations on how editorial content and resources are to be shared.

But there are two issues on which we must agree before any agreement can be reached. One is that the publication be strictly aesthetically neutral both in terms of editorial policy and in look. You established that principle in the 70s and I feel that it is especially important that it be adhered to in the 21st century with all its marketing and promotion oriented writing that is trying to pass for critical thought.

Two is that you and I must share the leadership of the publication equally. Neither of us is all knowing and omnipotent. And especially given our ages, we each must rely on being educated by the generations that follow us regarding the political realities and communication modes of the 21st century. We can make the NAE a success only if we work together in a cooperative way that relies on mutual consensus on critical editorial and business policies. Consensus is the way we work in the U.S. within the framework of Art Message International (AMI), both at the staff and Board levels, and it works very well.

In that light, I suggest the following:

1. You shall keep the title of Cofounder and Publisher. I shall take the title of Co-Publisher. We shall direct the operations of the magazine by mutual consensus. To be clear, that does not mean that I would meddle in the UK operations or its basic editorial content, since I do not have the depth of knowledge about the UK’s artistic and political environment. Likewise, it is clear that what the U.S. audience want to read about are not the issues that were the core of our content 40 years ago. They are clamoring for more 21st century points of view on topics such as gender politics in contemporary art and alternate distribution systems for art that can substitute for what they take to be a defunct gallery system.

2. I will retain the title of U.S. Editor until we can find someone who is qualified, both academically and administratively, to take it over. I can make do with the help of Tom Mullaney until we find such a person. That will allow me to keep the copy content flowing in the U.S., as I have finally established good working relationships with many of our more senior writers and have been able to reach out to a number of new writers. But in the long run, it is too much for one person to be Co-Publisher (which is the COO of the organization), U.S. Editor, and publication designer. Unfortunately, Annie Markovich does not have the capability or skill to be U.S. Editor, and she cannot serve in that capacity. She has repeatedly demonstrated her inability to carry out the simplest administrative tasks and has cost us money on several occasions due to the neglect of her duties. We need to find her an honorary position in which she does not have to do anything, but that recognizes her loyalty over the years to the magazine.

3. No one from either organization involved with the NAE may air private organizational disputes in any public forum. That is simply unprofessional and completely unacceptable behavior. In fact in recognition of this, AMI has recently amended its Policies and Procedures to include that prohibition and made the violation grounds for termination. You will note that I never posted anything regarding our dispute on any electronic media. That was no accident. I refuse to indulge in such unprofessional behavior under any circumstances.

If we can reach agreement on these critical points, then a reconciliation between our two organizations is not only possible but will bear the fruit that you and I so long for—a truly open forum for the critical discussion of contemporary aesthetics and a fitting memorial to the literary efforts of Jane Allen. And with this foundation, we can build an organization that will survive the both of us and, at the same time, restore the reputation that the NAE had in its heyday.

Sincerely,

 

Michel Ségard
Associate Publisher
Art Lantern