Tuesday, August 04, 2009

I'm confused

I'm not sure if this review by the WaPo's Chief Art Critic is a good one or not.

There's not much to see in two art projects now on view in Baltimore. That's why it's worth rushing out to get a look at them before they close in the next few weeks.
In fact my plebian mind fails to understand the bipolar nature of the points in the review, wondering from negative to positive to negative again, and ending in positive (I think), all the while while seeming to praise the actions of a former art curator heading to the fold of a mad South American dictator while rehashing traditional critical arrows at the heart of art and style as if they themselves were new. I think that Blake may be somewhat brilliant in the way that he managed to confuse me, but then again, I could be wrong. Prepare to be confused here.

For an equally brilliant counterpoint, Richard Whittaker interviews Jane Rosen:
Jane Rosen: I want to make work that you don't have to have a Master’s degree in Art History to understand. When I lived in St. Martin there was something about the quiet and the water. I became interested in fishing and met an elegant old black man, Mr. Anstley Yarde, who was very tall and thin and had a great presence. He taught me how to fish. You use a can and string. He’d get me at six o’clock in the morning and we’d get these snails. We’d sit on a rock and drop soda-can lines and just sit there. I never caught a fish but he’d catch them. He’d hear them...and I thought, this man has knowledge. And one day, we’re sitting on the rock and he asked me what kind of art I made. I knew Mr. Anstley Yarde would not understand the art I was making at that time, and I realized I wanted him to understand it. It raised that question: who and what does my art address? Who did I want to talk to and what did I want to talk about?

... Theorists will start talking and I’ll start thinking, "O God. I’m illiterate!" But in actual fact, I’m literate about another range of experience, a range they are not connected to. It’s simply not an issue for them!
Read the interview with Jane Rosen in Conversations here.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

"In fact my plebian mind fails to understand the bipolar nature of the points in the review, wondering from negative to positive to negative again, and ending in positive (I think), all the while while seeming to praise the actions of a former art curator heading to the fold of a mad South American dictator while rehashing traditional critical arrows at the heart of art and style as if they themselves were new."

Whaa? Think I understood his review. The above sentence, on the other hand, makes no sense.

Lenny said...

Great... he confused me and now I confused you... it's catching!

Joseph Barbaccia said...

I’m always a bit hesitant to look for art in work that has a goal or raison d’ĂȘtr; whether the reason be political/social change or money or whatever. Though I have to admit that Art CAN sometimes be hidden amid the detritus’ of message or market. The question I’m having now is how can intent be recognized, especially in my own work.