I found Mr. Kovatch's letter to be presumptuous, intellectually sloppy, and unnecessarily rude. Here are some questions I would like to seem him respond to...
Who owns the intellectual property rights to the logos, the companies in question or Dan Anderson?
Is it ever appropriate to use another artist's work as a starting point from which to reinterpret, advance, wander, etc?
Doesn't plagiarism refer to an exact copy? Are you accusing Mr. Schmidt of making an exact copy of a specific work?
What is his base of authority for instructing a gallery curator what their curatorial responsibility is? Isn't deciding that part of being the curator?
Why in leveling such public criticism are you so focused on one particular piece and not the artist's entire body of work?
Overall I was unimpressed with the quality of his thinking and writing, which is too bad, because the overall theme of his note raises questions that should intrigue the field. But he needlessly distracts with poor argumentation, and oversimplification. I think he might have taken a bit more time with his research and chosen a better example, which if ceramics was honest with itself, we would admit it would not be hard to find.
It would be interesting to see more coverage of the topic, just more thoughtfully executed.