Unless you know that Cornell University's house style calls for "judgement" over "judgment" or shows no preference, your tsk-tsking is amiss and makes you look irritable and picky.
Are you going to think about the possible value of comments that might help you get your arguments taken more seriously, or are you going to play "I know you are, but what am I?" The latter will get your arguments taken less seriously.
I don't have to know anything about Cornell U's house style to make the assertion I made. You wrote: "Jirousek, who was born and educated in Minnesota and taught at Cornell University in New York, either didn't know it or didn't care." I'm saying simply that you don't have the right kind of evidence to conclude that Jirousek didn't know it or didn't care. Other possible explanations exist, not only the one about house style. For example, perhaps J knew and cared, but the spelling in print is a typesetting error that wasn't caught.
Then, like me, you disagree with the following assertion made in post 41, correct?:
>>>if you don't know what concept Sherman has been developing for her entire career of course you wont appreciate her images, as her work is as much about the concept behind as it is about the image.
I don't know enough about Sherman's work or its history to have an informed opinion there. What I disagree with is leaping from "You need to know the concept if you're to appreciate conceptual art" to "You need to know the concept if you're to appreciate any art."