The Digest. 04.28.08.

Superman lives, in Williamsburg. (Photo by C-M.)

Posted by C-Monster.


  1. jason

    I’m starting to see a lot of this stuff about how art history graduate programs are responsible for all the lousy critical/curatorial writing. I think that this is totally irresponsible. Only a small proportion of art historians work on contemporary art, and most of that small group are sensitive to the distinction between history and criticism. Is there some school of art historical thought, some program, some text, anything anywhere that we can point to as the culprit? Or is it just that much easier to blame something we know little (nothing?) about? I think that foes of lousy art writing might productively look elsewhere for their scapegoat. If the current crop of curators are misunderstanding the books their advisors assigned, that is their problem, no? The art historians I know (even those working on very recent art) have been fed up with inarticulate, half-baked ‘problematizing’ for as long as I can remember, but rather than just sitting around writing about how ‘problematic’ it is, they develop other, better alternatives.