on writing: fragments of a review

I just finished writing a review for Art Papers on Which Witch is Which? and/or Summertime at White Flag Projects in St. Louis, Missouri.

It’s an important exhibition and I hope that my review will, once published in-print a few months down the road, convey this.  When writing this review, my thoughts would turn to thinking about the editing process.  Overlooking my edits, I found about a dozen sentences in fragments, realizing that I only type out my thoughts on a keyboard until that train of thought ends.  Sometimes a thought doesn’t reach conclusion and sometimes it doesn’t get past a thesis statement. More discussions about the self-referential process of writing should be discussed in the arts – because so much bad art historical writing exists.

What follows is a list of some of the incomplete thoughts (and bad grammar) that didn’t make it into the final review and an insight into my non-linear writing process:

Ledare’s photographs are of hAuthentic, staged, a mixture of both? And in case you were wondering, the subject of Ledare’s photographs is his mother.  The photographer and subject are complicit in creating a portrait of the artist and a portrait of the mother.

As simple and silly as any Duchampian recombination of everyday objects, the plastic teeth brush against the white, painted surfaces .  Without making a noise, a synaesthetic sensation of scratching lingers in the air, as if from memory, but knowing how these physical objects interact with one another.

As such, the essay becomes another node, another part of the exhibition which rubs against the other works, changing their perceived meaning in response to the essay.
Do I need to read a wall label in order to “get it”?
The “objectness” of an artwork.

Perhaps this seems obvious, now.  Needs proof: Give an example. But this time it has been announced loudly.

Proof: They are not the same thing, obviously.  It could be argued that the exhibition has always acted upon the works as just one element in circulation determining the particularity of each exhibition.  But in terms of events and immediacy/Happenings depended upon the particular place and actors involved, but Summertime disregards the immediate as anything more than just one state that things pass through, not worshipping the Zen decree.

One Response to “on writing: fragments of a review”
  1. Ajay says:

    hello, I just heard about this recently – that you’d be writing a review. Would you mind sending me a copy of the piece? I’d love to read it…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: