don’t overly nerd up art in the analytical as the artist inhales a deep sense of lacking and exhales a countering lest the artist may suffocate under the weight of welded words. well, probably not as words then just become another expanse of lacking

“All art is critical. But it does not merely sit back and offer up critical commentary, like some know-it-all talk radio pundit. It actually does something about the shitty state — whatever that is, and I don’t mean only Texas — in which it finds itself. It makes that state better by presenting a vision of something different and then delivering an experience of whatever that may be. 

To me, every single artist looks at the world, finds it lacking, and then makes something to counteract that lack. Lots of times without knowing, exactly, what is lacking. As viewers, focusing overmuch on art’s analytical/critical moment is unambitious. It nerds things up and overlooks art’s intransigent physicality, its experiential heart and soul.

All exhibitions, like works of art, are implicit critiques of other exhibitions, scenes, stories, and schools. So in that sense, this one is no different.”



 Los Angeles Times critic and Claremont Graduate University


You may also like

Anouk De Clercq: when artists write
“I am writing for the same reason I am making art”
Being scientist (or artist) is not necessarily an indicator of creativity nor smarts
Xu Bing [why artists write: a case of transference]