Why he spent so many letters? It's so stupid. Only question I would like to ask is: When does he consider the last "real" art object? I've checked his wikipedia, dunno maybe he is just making one more art-joke by writing this. This reference for good Michelangelo art object is so controversial. People decide it as good, huh. What people? It's the same stuff as contemporary. It's only worthy if he is attacking all global history of art, but this David reference totally destroys it. Same as style of the text it's just low-level ranting, for complete resemblance it should be written in caps lock. I don't think that guy from Goldsmiths can think so superficially. This is a one more point to mark it as a joke.