I have apparently been taken to task for a truncated citation from my blog, so I wish to dispel any confusion. The full sentence in my post reads
I am by now quite used to the academic snobbism and lobbying that excludes « mere » bloggers, with rare exceptions.
Andrew Cole is one of these rare exceptions, and I well remember our exchanges in 2015, when he published a critique of Harman’s ideas in ARTFORUM, so I know he is himself no newcomer to these debates on ooo. This article can be found here:
along with another article on ooo:
My concern is rather with the possibility that the tendentious re-writing of intellectual history by ooo’s proponents (most notably in their excising or caricaturing of opponents and opposing arguments) be validated by later, non-partisan « newcomer » accounts that are obliged to rely on a skewed historical record:
Andrew Cole’s work on OOO and its (lack of) reception provides a typical example of the earlier comportment of this movement when confronted with critical objections.
I argued in favour of rational reception to Cole’s arguments, but to no avail (I think):