What is most interesting about the former 'error' printed here was the juxtaposition of how obviously it wasn't true, with how it obviously seemed true to the writer. To somebody who only knows Greenberg's work through the dismissive and error-riddled writing of others, Greenberg supposedly rejecting something for "not being abstract enough" fits exactly with their utterly ignorant ideas about him. To somebody who has actually read and understood what Greenberg actually wrote over his long career, the idea that Greenberg would ever say anything like that is absurd.

The gulf between what 99% of today's art writers think Greenberg wrote, and what he plainly, actually did write, is vast.