"Extraordinary Critique": Peter Cowling of Art Connect Interviews Catherine Spaeth

I was quite flattered to be contacted by Peter Cowling for his second interview in this series for Art Connect. His first interview with Ruben Natal-San Miguel, of ARTmostfierce, makes a wonderful story of the role of photography in the post 9/11 years, so be sure to visit Art Connect and read that as well. But for now:

Peter Cowling - loveart (PC)
You first started blogging back in October 2007. What factors prompted you to commit to writing a blog?

Catherine Spaeth (CS)
I was writing for magazines and newspapers, and after studying the history of contemporary art for so long was very frustrated by the limits upon one’s writing in the established forms of print media. Many magazines, for example, are not interested in reviewing group shows. I provide well-curated art tours privately, and in New York there are amazing appearances of things down the street from one another. This is just the way that art is visible here, works of art can be like ideas bouncing off one another, and this is often very interesting. I felt compelled to write in a way that newspapers and magazines do not appreciate, and there was really nothing to stop me from doing it.

PC
It is one of the very best moments, when you are able to think ‘why not, there is nothing stopping me’.

Now, one opportunity I would like to get your thoughts on would be bloggers who want to develop the ability to produce better-written art critique. Before we start, perhaps you could set out your thoughts on the job of an art historian when writing critique?

CS
I think the first job, really, is to respond to what’s immediately before you, and this is why I am drawn to contemporary art to the extent that I am. It is the job of the art historian to be adequate to that. So description, being able to describe an experience of something, is where it starts. And then it begins to get interesting because there are always competing histories in any choice of words. Knowing the history of art criticism is crucial - you do align yourself within a history of words, carry that history forward even as you are re-writing it, bearing upon it with the inflections, corrections of your own time. The work you are doing remains that of description, these words adhere to the work of art at the same time - they are not loose interpretations and you can really tell when they are failing to stick to the object and when they are successful in describing it.

PC
Okay, so it is completely possible to critique contemporary art as an art historian?

CS
From my perspective, it is impossible not to critique contemporary art as an art historian. This is not in the flippant sense that because I am an art historian I think art historically, but because art actually thinks, and there is a history of thought that it is thinking with and inside of. I feel that if you are not attending to that you are missing the best of it.

PC
I tend to think of the writing on your blog as being highly accessible, but that is probably the wrong description. It is not accessible in the sense that any child could read it, but it is in the sense that it makes the art you critique highly accessible. Is that your intention, and do you have any perspective on the wider debate about the need for art to be ‘dumbed-down’ in order to accommodate a wider audience?

CS
I have been a strong advocate for the expression of difficult ideas in arts writing. I am quick to condemn other art’s writers who make jabs at difficult language when it comes off as sheer anti-intellectualism, and it frequently does. So by making a work of art accessible without skirting away from difficult ideas, one is acknowledging the thought of the work, making it visible - not simply glossing over it. In turn, I always write with something at stake, and those stakes are sensed out of the art.

There is no one art world, and so I don’t have much at stake in condemning art or art writing that is accessible. I do, however, take very strong objection to what you are referring to as “dumbing down” when it is relied upon as uncritical fodder for the market. For this reason there is a very important role for the academy and the museum to uphold a place for scholarly research. But I have also seen some atrocious academic writing, produced by galleries especially, that relies upon a history of philosophical thought to dress something up for the market.

PC
One way in which the writing on your blog stands out is that you do not seek to impose a single flow of thought where none should exist. It seems to me that this works because you build your thoughts around the art, rather than trying to shoehorn the art into an a-z style of writing. Is this an accurate reading of your approach? Could you give some perspective on the overall writing style you utilize when writing a blog entry?

CS
Right. I think there is a way to have authority in your writing by successfully delivering the sense of the object and it meanings, and to do this in such a way that your address to others is quite broad and generous. The form of the blog is perfect for this kind of openness in writing. And it really does start from being very open to the art, attending to it. It is not that there aren’t strong declarative statements in my writing, and I do think I am saying what things are. But there is an awful lot of room in what things are.

PC
Another aspect that stands out is your use of references, and analogies. Do you have any tips on how to balance the desire to be inclusive with the need to maintain momentum?

CS
I don’t think there are tools, per se. Inside of your question there might be something about reach, and I do enjoy having a lot of reach. This has to do with that sense of there being a lot of room in things. By this I mean that the meanings generated by a work of art extend into the larger context of the world at large, and it is here as well that you are becoming art historical. The references and analogies that appear are only appearing because the work of art as I understand it has that kind of reach, it really comes from there. As for momentum, you might call it running room. But in order to see it perhaps you need a lot of curiousity, and the self-criticism to be playfully aware of your own tics and habits. Sometimes even references and analogies are really in the way, will slow things down, and you need to bust through them entirely to get back to the work at hand. It’s not about what you already know, there is a sense of being taken up by a history of thought when you write about art.

PC
Art historians are able to build-up an extensive and detailed understanding of their chosen area of expertise. It is tempting to think, then, that art historians are just the sum of their facts, applied to a given situation. I do not agree with that view – not least because I have seen art historians who provide illuminating insight into art they have little prior knowledge about. Is it the case that art historians develop a systematic approach to viewing and thinking about art?

CS
For myself there is no system or method. If I have a system, I suppose it is that I know the history of words and their use with relevance to the objects they’ve described. So for example if a word like “complicity” shows up when I am looking at and thinking about a work of art, I am automatically beholden to that word and its histories, and can’t help writing from the perspective of the question, “What does it mean, when I look at this specific work of art, to use the word complicity as an expression of this time, given its history with regard to art?” There is a great deal of care in that. And so maybe the systematic approach would be in this way of caring.

Read more...