The scholar Michael Warner writes that "with email, bureacratic memos and love notes, the object of address is understood to be an identifiable person or office." What you've just published on your blogs, your editorial statements, are different: they are examples of an individual aesthetic position addressed to a public sphere. "For this other class of writing contexts," Warner continues, "including literary criticism, journalism, theory, advertising, fiction, drama, the available addressees are essentially imaginary, which is not to say unreal. The people, scholarship, posterity, the younger generation, the nation, the Left, the movement, the world, the vanguard, the enlightened few, public opinion, humanity, my fellow queers: these are all publics. They are in principle open-ended. Even declaiming [your editor's statement] to a group of intimates, [you] could still be heard as addressing a public. We'd then recognize ourselves as strangers even when we know each other."

But such a conception of the public sphere as aesthetic opinion's object of address is today challenged by a number of forces, including increased hybridic identity, transnational mobility and global capitalism. Bill Reading describes two alternatives to the more homogeneous, nation-based public sphere: one is the scene of dissensus, the other is the global consumer marketplace. What's the difference? And would your art magazine function differently when moved from one to the other?