Comments on: The Center of Art: A Conversation with Critic & Curator Karen Wilkin

By: Franklin

Franklin — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 03:36:55 +0000

Well done, Hrag.

By: Laurie Frick

Laurie Frick — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 13:10:07 +0000

Interesting read from a critic who is both opinionated and well grounded. Curious that by being a bit off center, she sounds fresh and timely. thanks Hrag.

By: Hrag Vartanian

Hrag Vartanian — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 22:03:06 +0000

Well, Daniel, I don’t think positivism is such an awful thing, though I understand its critique and why it doesn’t work well in the world of art.

Nick, I’ll try to clarify a little. My denial of objective criticism comes from a tendency in the 1970s and 80s to academicize art criticism and theory, which I think took all the pleasure and poetry out of it. There is no science of art but there are some truths that hold true, but that’s also contentious issue. The notion of quality itself was a battleground in the art world then and continues to be for some people. Of course, I’m speak for myself, Karen may have her own take.

By: Nick Riggle

Nick Riggle — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 19:17:01 +0000

Hey Daniel,

I understood that part of what Hrag was saying. My question was about what is being denied when he denies that there is objective criticism. I mean, surely you think that your criticism has some legitimacy, that what you’re saying is right or important, in some sense. And it seems obvious that some criticism is better than others — it’s more to the point, insightful, sympathetic, and so on. It seems to follow that there must be standards of a sort. They very likely aren’t going to pick out a single true assessment of an artwork, but they can help us pick out good criticism. So my question is, doesn’t this go some way towards thinking that there is objectivity in criticism?

By: Daniel Larkin

Daniel Larkin — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 18:50:12 +0000

And by the way Karen, you had a nice long quoation in today’s obit for Noland in the Times. In fact, it was longer than the quote for Clement Greenberg! May he rest in peace.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/arts/06noland.html

By: Daniel Larkin

Daniel Larkin — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 18:46:29 +0000

Look I agree with both Nick and Karin, in thinking objective is a tricky concept. It reeks of positivism.

But I think Hrag meant “less biased” and was trying to make a different point.

Part of the joy of being a critic is to carry on an intense and rigourous conversation with the artist about their work. Karin alluded to this in her discourse. When, I am introduced to artists because I like their work and want to write about it, not because I want to party with them and become their friend. They can tell because I’m blunt and clear like that.

So when I say I like certain elements, and then give them detailed reasons why, it means alot to them, because they know that I am not sucking up or kissing ass . They know that I am not interested in become friends. Intead I am articulating a sincere experience of their work.

And when I say I don’t like certain element, and then rip it up, they know it’s not out of spite and envy, which festers in so many friendships, but once again a sincere articulation of the experience of the work.

And I think that this sincerity is what Hrag was trying to talk about. Correct me if I am wrong.

By: Victoria

Victoria — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:14:04 +0000

‘Resist fashion’. Wise words from a learned historian and critic. Thanks for this great interview!

By: Nick Riggle

Nick Riggle — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 14:36:33 +0000

Fantastic interview! All the right questions and very interesting answers. I’m surprised you both think that there’s no such thing as objective criticism. What do you mean by that? For one thing, certainly some criticism is markedly better than other criticism. So there seems to be standards up to a point. Perhaps there is no objective way to choose between the criticism that is objectively good (which may represent widely differing points of view), but that’s consistent with there being at least some important standards, and so objectivity of a sort (though obviously it’s not easy to say what those standards are).

By: Sue Reno

Sue Reno — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 01:17:48 +0000

Excellent interview, with a well articulated and interesting perspective. I especially liked this: “I don’t subscribe to any art magazines, which avoids having my life invaded every month by things that infuriate or depress me.” Ha!