One of Art F City's commenters had a bee in his smock that I was defending Ryder Ripps, who "doesn't need my help" because the recent controversy over Craiglist sensual masseuses helped Ripps "cement his bad-boy brand." My reply:
There might be reasons other than defending Ryder or "contrarianism" for objecting to two NY non-profits lowering the ban hammer on an artist. It sets a bad precedent. Saying you're not going to review a future show because of someone's previous art, or using a phrase like "ethically unsound" (which has a vaguely Soviet ring to it) ought to be addressed, so I did it. I've mentioned other artists who might also be provocateurs, yet haven't been dissed by the art authorities. Andrew Norman Wilson's takedown of the Google badge system was pure click magic, and see my questions regarding Antonellis' "Poland Spring" piece on AFC today. This is not an issue related to one particular attention-hungry artist, but you seem to have fixated on that. Also, "contrarianism" as I understand the term means opposing popular opinion for its own sake, or to stir up trouble, rather than having actual beliefs and principles.