Gregg writes of the "larger conversation" added up from individual contributions. It's a nice idea, which may have its moments of truth, but I've never been overly sold on that sort of cumbaya diversity equals wealth, one-giant-leap-for-mankind, celebrate-diversity where all voices are equal (the logical extension of the "larger conversation" idea)?blather. For, even though the very language an individual operates with has been bestowed by a given society, even though trends in cultures may for the most part be socially constructed, ideas are only expressed by?wholly unique persons, whose experience, if nothing else, is like no other human's who ever existed. It is the individual who expresses that unique experience (and thus viewpoint) in various shades of social currency we call?language. It is that individual who can stretch the lines of that language, and lend new meaning, unique from all the others, and certainly head and shoulders above the collective. Here we are witness to the unique expressions of Samuel L. Clemens, who was certainly influenced by various societies, groups and even nations, but whose voice remained his own, highly recognizable, highly prized. This may seem like?a chicken & egg, expressivist vs. social constructivist argument, but it is this the individual who gives us true genius, some sufficiently potent to change the course of history, and in many cases, the "larger conversation" which gives the pabulum of mediocrity.?Let's face it--there's a herd instinct in most views of art that critics offer. ?Critics exist supposedly to tell the rabble what art means (or, even what it *is*), but the rabble often sees behind the curtain, perceives what critics are up to: sucking joy from the marrow of art; tiresome ideas based on elitism; diversity with perversity, etc. I do think Gregg makes a valid distinction between criticism which dissects and that which stands back to find some overriding meaning--yet, many might not call the latter criticism at all, but merely enjoyment or awe;?most criticism we are familiar with does the former, is equated with the former, and is a rather dour, baleful bucket of slop. David