Connect Post 3: Ism That Isn't and 1913 Armory Show

In past seminars we have discussed the role of government in advocating art, specifically the CIA and modern art in the US, even when the general public doesn't want or like the movement. In "the 1913 Armory Show: America's First Art War", the author states after the president of the AAPS, "it was time the American people had an opportunity to see and judge for themselves concerning the work of the Europeans who are creating a new art." Also, "The Ism that Isn't" article brought up questions about the critiquing process in the art world as well as the absurdity of labels.
One idea I found interesting about "The 1913 Armory Show" article was the concept of the mob as a critic. When the author described critiques of Duchamp's Nude Descending a Staircase, he/she writes,  "Some of the letters are astounding, if only in terms of the amount of energy people were willing to put into them." This is interesting because it shows how many people are involved in art appreciation, even if they might not be as involved otherwise. What drove them to be involved? Was it the idea of having European art exhibited in the US? Why were they not immediately open to new style? Are they really that happy with American art at that time? These critics made their opinions scientific-- exactly like artists made their art movements scientific, and just like Saatchi initiated his movement-- furthering their deep involvement.
In "The 'ism' that Isn't" article, the author writes on how Saatchi completed all the steps to create a new ism, yet it was of no value and was created to show how isms weren't really worth that much. However, this is does not mean that artwork should be grouped any which way, like is stated in "The 1913 Armory Show. This gives rise to the question, how hard is it to write a manifesto and how seriously is it taken? Saatchi was able to publish a manifesto and compose an exhibit on his "Neurotic Realism", causing a buzz in the art world. However, why are other isms like "Vorticism" unsuccessful? The Armory article also reveals the absurdity of the art critique world, especially when the general public, or the mob, are given an opportunity to give their opinions. Even outside the mob, certain art critics-- Gertrude Stein appeared to be "drunk" when critiquing Nude. The entire article was basically making fun of the labels used in the art world as well as the people who think they are qualified to critique works of art.
Finally, there was evidence in the CIA article from past seminars that the US forced it's art upon European galleries, yet in the Armory article, curators brought European art over to share with the public. How did Europe react to having their art showcased in the US? Was it a mutual feeling as the curators had sharing new art? It seemed that American art was not up to par to the European's so at what point in time was it? This seems to be the same situation as middle eastern art in our first seminar of the year, where their art was considered inferior and almost copying American art. The Middle East was in the same situation as in the US, who was simply behind of Europe in movement. 
After reading these two articles, I felt that anything can be explained in a way that makes it sound like there is no purpose and is ridiculous. The Ism article wrote about how labels are irrelevant; they are simply an easy way to group a wide variety of artists. The Armory article wrote about how anybody can be an art critic, and even art critics can sound unintelligent.