Do we merely advocate for artists who have assimilated institutional power but then shit on artists who are under-represented? Do we shit on low-hanging fruit and artists who oppose the detrimental project of appeasing insiders and assimilating cultural cachet? Are we really just here to become a downtown micro-celebrity? Do we really want a world of aesthetes and their acolytes self-perpetuating pre-existing socio-political structures in order to be seen as a kabal of tastemakers? Or do we want to enfranchise people who are under-represented, everyday or humble? What could be more violent than someone who authorizes themselves to have access based upon their opinion which claims to be superior and elevated? Is an opinion which claims access merely enacting a critique of judgement based upon a fundamental negative proposition of one logic over another? Should we not recognize that “being” in and of itself outstrips any attempt to enunciate one person’s opinion of what’s right as more logical over another? Should not our logic be based upon something universal, arriving from the self-evident truth of choice?