Interviewer: Have you any interest in the criticism that you’ve received? Or the writing that your pieces have provoked? Does it interest you? Or don’t you read it?
Artist: Yes, I read it. I always like to be informed on the response to the work. And I’m interested in it.
I: Are there any critics that are particularly interesting to you?
A: Right now there are not very many that seem interesting to me. I guess the kind of writing that seems more interesting to me is on a much more theoretical level that has certain implications for the arts. Maybe writing in other fields of perception, philosophy and so forth. I don’t see any criticism today that seems to be revealing any kind of new . .. it’s not bringing a dimension of perception to the work that one isn’t aware of by encountering. Or it seems to me there is not any kind of criticism that today seems to me to be very deep. Most of it unfortunately seems to be reduced to journalism, or even worse than that, if not journalism, highly defensive in terms of one point of view or another.
I: That’s very interesting. Ivan Karp said almost the same thing last night; that critics are setting up arbitrary groups and arbitrary situations and then acting as someone to defend that which they have developed and the artist may not see any relationship and no one else is involved.
A: Yes. Well, I think that’s very sad that you get this kind of partisan criticism. It’s just another form of journalism.