Page 37 - Studio International - May June 1975

considering those holes and limits. Every really direct and difficult at all, but easy `Should a critic be neutral?
artist above a certain level of intention and predictable and elite. Those are not Should she theorize about the art?'
and seriousness has strengths and contradictions. It's easy to be fashionable `Theorizing is the greater part of some
weaknesses, and should be considered. and elite because the lines are so carefully critics' activity. I don't mean that as a
Of course it's hard, I'm sometimes drawn out it's only necessary to follow putdown, but I think one should give
outraged by work that I find pretentious, them or rebel against them, to be oneself wholly to the art being discussed
and I get moralistic about it. I guess accepted.' rather than maintaining a "superior"
everyone has blind spots. `Are you happy about the distance or using the art to concoct
`I think critics have a responsibility to influence of magazines?' theories in the air. I've often said there is
complain about things, like the `Not at all. I wish artists and no such thing as real objectivity — but
situation now, where people are showing audiences thought more for themselves. that the inevitable subjectivity demands
too much too soon. There's a kind of But visiting all those cities in the US — an urge towards, or longing for,
control, or lack of it, in the galleries, the virtually all but New York now — which objectivity to provide some tension, to
whole situation seems out of hand. have no critical vehicle at all except keep one from sinking into dull self-
I feel like keeping things stirred up.' • newspaper journalism (usually abysmal, indulgence. I don't feel at all neutral.
probably thanks to editors who haven't But I make the choice for the artist
any respect for their readers' before writing because I simply don't
intelligence) — those cities miss that write about work I don't like. Life is
dialogue or feedback so much that I have short and I don't want to spend my time
Lucy Lippard to realize that at its core criticism is on things I don't find interesting. I've
`How has your thinking changed valuable. The problem is how to keep it only "attacked" an artist's work a couple
between the span of the "Changing" from being used wrong — by artists as well of times, and then because I've felt that it
essays, the "Dematerialization" as by critics, dealers, editors et al. Not to was so overrated that the situation was
book, and your Studio column?' mention an audience which by actually harmful to other art and artists.
`I'm not so sure the attitudes in any of swallowing everything whole, by not I don't theorize much because I'm not
these are so drastically different from thinking before and during reading (and much good at it and I find other people's
each other, although there has been a by not even looking before reading) is theorizing pretty dull on the whole. I'm
gradual disillusionment with criticism, doing the art the greatest injustice of all. more interested in ideas, how they float
and with the art world in general. The magazine — so dependent on and come to rest on various points of the
Mainly, however, I just get progressively advertisements — is a commodity too and aesthetic network and then perhaps float
less worried about what anybody else will to survive it exploits the art in turn. on again and are transformed into some
think, freer about expressing my own Because art economics is so centralized, entirely different visual phenomenon.
attitudes without checking them against magazines, more than individual critics, I recognize them from my own experience
others — maybe sloppier in the process. have much too much power.' and from the information I'm able to
In "Changing" I was concerned with `Do you think art or art criticism pick up (usually from artists) after that
making a hard, clear, intelligent can be a political activity?' initial impact. Theories have to add up to
counterpart of the art; in "Six Years" `Only in regard to the art establishment, something, like logic, and that's
with criticism as a framework rather than which is a minute part of the whole dangerous. Really "good" theories are
a commentary — an information network establishment (capitalist society) that captivating, but if another equally good
set up for work which often, literally, governs all aspects of our lives. There is one comes along it's equally captivating,
spoke for itself; the Studio columns are no such thing as "anti-art". Or if there is but the art itself, and the viewer's
an isolated example. I'd hoped for a lot we have no idea what it is, because it has responses, remain more valid in
from them, but was so dissatisfied with not been and cannot be seen in the art themselves. I'd rather trust my own eyes
the way they were handled by the context.' and associations. I'm certainly not saying
magazine that I quit before I could `How much are your future anybody else has to think like I do, but
really get moving. That "stream of interests likely to be influenced by presumably it's of some interest to get
consciousness" criticism I'd hoped to your past interest in Surrealism, and informed feedback even if one doesn't
reach is still pending. In the meantime "Eccentric Abstraction" — the non- agree. Theories tend to include certain
I'm treading water more than anything visual?' insights, to smother the work. When an
else, at least in terms of any innovative `To begin with, none of these things artist changes styles in midstream, his or
approach. I'm less interested in new was "non-visual", but were, in fact, her theoretical supporters tend to be
styles of writing than in pinning down highly sensuous artifacts. Dada's caught in the lurch, and their theories go
content where I was afraid to see it iconoclasm, as well as Ad Reinhardt's through riotous contortions to keep up
before. It seems particularly important at the other extreme, have been great with events. Theories trap writers too.
at the moment, especially from a feminist influences on my thinking. My "future art How awful not to be free to confront and
point of view, to clarify not only the interests" will depend entirely on what art encounter a work of art on its own terms,
reasons for the art being the way it is, is made in the future, and in what first of all, rather than squeezing it into
but the reasons why it has been handled contexts I see it, where my head is at the some preconceived framework. What a
and responded to in certain ways. I also time.' sad life for an art critic — to feel that the
find myself wanting to set up a more `Might content replace taste for work has to be such-and-such to be good,
sensuous or intimate relationship with you?' to only be able to enjoy a few "quality"
the reader, as well as with the art. This is `No. The only thing that replaces works — that famous line that you can't
unquestionably the result of writing and Taste with a capital T (or general, ie (are not allowed to) like, say, Louis's work
talking on women's work to other imposed taste) is taste in lower case, my if you don't like it for the right reasons,
women, becoming less afraid to expose own case — personal taste. I can say that is, for reasons imposed on you by
myself and my feelings about what I see. without wincing that I know what I like, someone else's taste and theories.'
That's been the catalyst for change as but I can also say I know something `What's missing from today's
much as anything.' about what I like as well. You find out criticism — what would you like it to
`In the "Cult of the Direct and the what you like by long experience. I know be?'
Difficult" essay you rejected "easy" my own taste well, much as I try to `I guess if I really knew, I'd be doing it.
art...' subvert it. I sometimes surprise myself by A lot of the more literate criticism lacks
`That made sense at the time — 1966 — liking some work that "isn't what I fire; it's so damn careful, so academic and
and I still admire the work made under usually go for", but for the most part I theoretical. A lot of the more fiery
that impetus, but having been have come to terms with my own taste, criticism is written so miserably it's hard
politicized in the meantime, I feel that if limitations, prejudices. It is important to to take it seriously even when I'm
it can't be communicated on other levels stay aware that these are the components sympathetic to the content. Recently I've
as well as the "highest", most and not to begin to think that personal found myself veering back to where I
specialized and rarefied plane, and to taste equals general GOOD TASTE. started, before I was publishing — an
other kinds of people than the inner core, The real problem is : where to go from interest in associational, personal
then it's likely to end up sterile — not there ?'. approaches, but only if it's raw enough,
185