"Art" editor's response to Jelena Mešter: Goebbels and Zhdanov would be delighted

and Ms. Mešter shows a disturbing ignorance of the matter. In her reaction, she also took a dig at the editor of "Art", because he published something that was not to her liking, and, as she insists - without her consent. I did not, as she says, "present my intention to her". It seems that the principles of public action are not taught where Ms. Mešter acquired her knowledge and qualifications.

So: publishing a critical review does not imply the consent of the “scientific public” or the criticized party. This rule applies to thematic journalistic texts when a phenomenon or process is analyzed from various sides, so it is prudent (and polite) to confront different positions in one place. A critical review, whether in the case of art or science, is a reaction to a work (book, study, idea, exhibition, concert), which is already a public act in itself. Imagine asking a painter or musician for consent to critically observe their exhibition or concert? Criticism would then not even exist...

The text to which Professor JM is reacting is precisely the voice of the scientific public. So, a serious professor writes critically (not at all sensationalistically and in great detail) about a book, and the authors of the book demonstrate their “scientific” power by preventing the publication of such a text.

Fortunately, their influence does not reach “Art”.

The media, of course, is obliged to give the criticized person space to respond, if they wish. Which, as we have seen, “Art” did. And for the author of the criticized book herself, it would have been better if she had not spoken out. And here's why.

Not only did she show a lack of understanding for media customs, she also showed something far more dangerous. Ms. Mešter sees insults in the critical review of a book she co-authored, although it seems more likely that she sees the very act of criticizing and writing about her work “without permission” as an insult.

And then he spectacularly illustrates his sense of principle: he slanders the author of the text and his former colleague, accuses him of alcoholism, and suggests that he be given psychiatric treatment.

I don't know how her professors from East Sarajevo would react to this and such "scientific principle", but I have no doubt that Goebbels and Zhdanov would be delighted. They brought this method to perfection...

Balša Brković, editor of “Arta”