Page 16 - Studio International - September 1973

An interview with I think in a way it helped. It may have write a sort of art criticism that opposed that.
helped me not to seal off earlier areas of interest. I wrote quite aggressively and in strong
Lawrence Alloway I always loved science fiction when I was a kid, opposition to my colleagues — and I was
and since I didn't go through college or pro-American art at a time when not everybody
James L Reinish
university, I wasn't under pressure to drop my was. It wasn't hard to make the point
sort of equivalent of high school culture. aggressively, but I did it that way in England.
James Reinish: In reading a lot of your Whereas if you go to university, you're under Now when I came to America, the situation was
critical writing, I sense an over-all point of strong pressure to break with all that very different. It seemed to me I was surrounded
view that you plug into almost every artist or `foolishness' — and start on Brecht or something. by smart, very intelligent . . . narrow people.
exhibition that you're discussing; this has to do I sort of read in a random fashion as I was So the idea of adding my style of aggression to
with your view of culture — looking at art not as interested, and I discovered at some point in my that didn't seem the point. And I think what's
an expression of 'high' culture but more as twenties that I hadn't given up a lot of those happened as a result of my coming to the
popular culture. Can you expand a little on what early interests. And I found that a lot of people I United States is that I've come to feel that if
you mean by popular culture ? began to meet in London around that time like there is something to do, it has more to do with
Lawrence Alloway: Yes. I think you've Eduardo Paolozzi, or Reyner Banham, or developing a unifying theory of art rather than
immediately hit on one of my fundamental Richard Hamilton — a lot of us were less fanatic support for some tiny segment of it.
interests. That is, my view of culture is, I hope, educated formally. I just added art to So my criticism has definitely broadened out in
non-hierarchic; although I'm an art critic and the interests I had already. an effort to find a unified theory, partly because
art used to be thought of as the highest form of JR: Were you writing art criticism in London ? my colleagues were looking for tiny, autonomous
visual art, I don't believe in height and depth. LA: Yes, sure. I started when I was at school as segments to defend. So the function of a critic
I believe in a continuum — not a descending and a book reviewer for the London Sunday Times, changes according to his reading of the scene in
ascending scale, and that means my interest in and art criticism started, I guess, when I was which he finds himself . . . . Art criticism is
painting and sculpture is not incompatible with nineteen or twenty. occasional to that extent; the occasion pushes
an interest in any other visual signs and symbols JR: I know you were associated with a group at you, and you consider what you can contribute.
produced in our culture. I see art as part of our the Institute of Contemporary Art in London — JR: I was trying to think of visual art criticism
culture — not necessarily the most representative the Independent Group it was cane& — that compared to criticism of other art forms. Film
thing in our culture — but a very complex and some of the artists you've mentioned like or theatre for instance. But those are more
special thing; still not different in kind from Paolozzi and Hamilton were part of too. Did day-to-day kinds of fields. Art criticism,
other forms of visual communication. And I do this group help shape your views ? seems to be different — more subtle.
assume that art is communication. Whether it's LA: Yes. What happened is the Independent LA: I think there are some art critics who have
abstract painting or whether it's revolutionary Group was convened by different people, and higher ambitions than most film or theatre
propaganda, my assumption is that its one year — I hadn't spent much time in it yet — critics who are either dedicated amateurs,
ultimate function is to communicate. So there's John McHale and I were the 'conveners' of it, fanatic hobbyists like a lot of the film critics, or
the notion of art as one area of a spectrum of and we made the subject popular culture. else sort of mere ornaments, commercial
human communication, and it's compatible with Previously it had been tending to deal with services, like most of the theatre critics are.
other human communications — not aspects of technology and architecture more, but Whereas art critics are lucky; in a way we've
necessarily an antagonistic relationship . . . it was McHale and myself who swung it over to got the ambitions we've inherited from the
JR: In comparing yourself with other art pop culture. And it was easy to do since humanist tradition's literary criticism, but on
critics that you have called elitist in approach — everyone was predisposed to the subject anyway. the other hand, we're not stuck with the kind of
what is it that you're examining that they're JR: So you came to New York already involved dogma that American literary criticism has got
leaving out in their isolated perspective ? in art criticism in many forms of expression of frozen into. So we've got a little of the
LA: A critic with what I would call an elitist popular culture. I know you've taught at ambition, but not too much of the rigidity of the
point of view tends to isolate painting into a few Bennington and now at Stony Brook; you were literary critics. And I think this is producing
peaks, a few giants, a few masterpieces. He, to curator at the Guggenheim, and a critic in all of good results in American art criticism.
my mind, brutally simplifies the range of this. Do you consider yourself a critic JR: I'm also interested in what a critic thinks of
artifacts in the area called art and says there's essentially, or is it some more unique profession peripheral figures in the art world — dealer,
one main line, one thin tradition, and only bits combining all of these kinds of talents ? collector, curator, etc. Do you consider these
even of this tradition really satisfy the criterion LA: Well, I think I'm a critic who teaches. roles secondary, even parasitic to the point
of greatness. Whereas my point of view — trying The curatorial thing was nice, but I think I get that without the artist none of these people
to put visual arts in relation to the whole of more time to write by teaching than by working would have anything to do ? You wouldn't have
visual communication— is almost an elitist in a museum. And with the sort of crisis anything to write about; Castelli wouldn't
point of view simply numerically, because not museums are in right now, I'm not sure I want have anything to sell. Or do you think all these
many people are interested in or accustomed to to take that on; I'd rather stay where I am. people are necessary ?
working that way at the moment. So a critic like JR: Do you think you've changed the students' LA: I think they've been fairly necessary in the
Clement Greenberg represents, I think, the point of view at all — let's say in terms of being art world. There's always the option of
final deterioration of an elitist position into able to see things ? secession, opting out; you know you can always
popular cliché acceptance. And I would like to LA: Who knows ? I don't even speculate on that. go to San Francisco and be a hermit ! But on the
think that I am engaged in something which But I do know they've changed my politics. I've whole I think in the tradition of modern art
started a bit later and has further to go — been radicalized — partly by my wife2 and since the 187os, the tendency has been to
mainly an attempt to look at culture, including women's lib and partly by the students. assume that art is better if it's distributed, that is,
art, holistically. JR: I'd like to ask you something about the if art is not restricted to a few elite collectors
JR: I'm not sure if popular culture has anything women's movement a bit later. More generally but goes to a wider public. You know the
to do with your background or development, but though — what do you think the role of the art history of modern art has been the history of the
what exactly was your training in London critic has become in the art world today ? democratisation of the distribution of art —
before you came to New York ? LA: Can I give a leisurely sort of answer ? museums, galleries, ever more easily available,
LA: Well, it's not much training. I had four When I was in England, I was surrounded by newspapers, periodicals and so forth. So there's
years of evening class at London University. what I considered to be mild idiots ! So I tried to the production of art which is done in the
62