Giles Prince responded to the invitation to my postcard collectors with two sets of postcards. Each set was in its own sealed envelope. The first, labeled “A,” contains five postcards: “Stockholm-Gävle” (June 6, 1998), “On Francis Bacon’s Talent” (November 2, 1998), “Jackson Pollock at Tate Gallery” (February 13, 1999), “Hoxton Square” (June 26, 1998), and “The Prize Itself” (November 30, 1999). The second, “B,” contains six cards: “Magnolias in London” (March 21, 1998), “Mental Note” (April 15, 1998), “Bruce Nauman at Hayward Gallery” (August 31, 1998), “Homage to Hegel” (November 7, 1998), “Returning” (December 20, 1998), and “Sunumugun” (November 9, 1999). The only difference I noticed about the two sets was that four out of five postcards in the first one were about art, whereas only one out of six in the second one concerned art. When I asked Giles for an explanation, he said that he sent me both his most and his least favorite cards. That is, he was acting as a critic. However, he was not sure which one was which any longer. After some reflection, I realized the set mostly about art must be the one Giles does not like. After all, he is an artist.

Addendum (February 16, 2000)

Today I received Giles’ response to the effect that nothing less than a public apology would heal the libelous harm inflicted by my slur. Although he does admit to a certain “artistry” and a degree of “artisanship” in his work, he regards the epithet of “artist” as the gravest of slurs. At the end of this century and millennium, this epithet indeed appears to be libelous. Realizing that Giles and I actually share this appreciation, I gladly apologize, and in public.