I find it interesting to ponder the possibility of Voulkos being absorbed into history as a whisper. As of now, he stands as a legendary figure to me--a mysterious one at that. I can honestly say I don't know much about his art, besides the fact that it was very influential. I know it was vessel oriented sculpture and that he liked to wood fire, but I don't really know what it means. I don't have any objections to what Clark is saying. Clark states accurately that at it's worst canonizing someone is "about power. At its best it's about seeking truth, finding aesthetic bedrock and perceiving cultural meaning." This seems to be a statement about politics, which nothing is free of. So how do we find those genuine people willing to take up the job of furthering aesthetic discourse? And what do we do about this sweeping fad of recent days that is rejecting critical theory in art?