In the February issue of Nommo one of my recent works of conceptual art was attacked without just cause by senior art major Prentiss Slaughter. I hope this editorial can explain my intentions as well as what I believe the piece accomplished.

In one night I silk-screened objectifying statements in front of each work of art in an all senior seminar studio art show. The phrases "I like this", "I don't like this", "Eh?", and "Whatever." were placed in front of each actual work of art, mimicking the harsh subjective nature of art criticism. The piece was not a personal attack against either individuals or their artwork. I was simply commenting on the art world as a whole, presenting the problems that arise when art is subjectively deemed acceptable or unacceptable by viewers.

-James Rauer is a College senior

Review should reconsider late calls

At about 1 a.m. on Thursday, Feb. 26 I received an unsolicited phone call from the Review as part of one of your random surveys. I understand that this is a college campus, and many people stay up to late hours, but others are trying to maintain a responsible schedule in order to accomplish productively the requirements of a busy classload. I, for instance, went to sleep early last night because I had an important exam the following day. I had arranged my schedule to allow sufficient time for rest, and did not expect interruptions in the middle of the night. In a conversation tonight (Thursday) with another staff member of the Review, she informed me that she usually "requests that reporters not call after midnight", especially for random surveys. The Review should know that "a telephone solicitor can't [by Federal law] legally call a residence before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m.", if the call is unsolicited, according to our local GTE yellow pages. The Review should reconsider their policies concerning their random surveys, and perhaps should take into consideration the varying lifestyles on this admittedly diverse campus.

-Andrew M. Sobel is a double-degree first-year