Friday, February 26, 2010

nothing if not critical

Jessica Dawson has an article on Transhuman Conditions in today’s Washington Post. Read it here.

She takes issue with the first sentence of my catalogue essay because it lacks conviction, or rhetorical flourish, or, well, that special something that 15th century Renaissance humanists had.

Um, okay…point conceded, I guess? Damn you, Pico!

(I totally understand the comparison: When I'm writing about contemporary artists, I immediately turn to Giorgio Vasari.)

A lot of rhetorical questions follow—“Why these artists? Why these projects? What future do these artists envision that other artists don't?”

How will I respond to this? Should I go through point by point and lay out my argument again—even though I feel that I’ve already done so in the exhibition itself and the catalogue essay? Wouldn’t that be a poor use of my time and energy? (Answers: As briefly as possible; no; yes.)

Anyway, I’m happy for the publicity, and the fact that it will bring a few more butts through the door, regardless of what was—or wasn’t—actually said.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

No worries!. How do you react when someone isn't happy with what you have written about his/her work?
Part of the concept behind art reviews is very outdated. Nowadays art can't be even curated in a way it was possible 40 years ago. currently, the concept behind a show is "the piece" and artists are the elements shaping that piece. Maybe you were not totally clear in what you were after, maybe the elements of your conceptual piece (The whole show) were not facilitating the idea.
I don't know, I find the whole business of art criticism so outdated and not even post-modern.
artist in emergency

12:35 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home