|
channelbeta COPYFREE |
|
[9-2004] |
|
channelbeta - canale d'informazione sull'architettura contemporanea |
|
A sottoporsi alle domande è James Elkins, critico e storico che ha scritto un recente libro, What Happened to Art Criticism?, in cui accusa i critici d'arte di non voler prendere posizione, optando per asettiche descrizioni. Quasi inutile sottolineare quanto queste accuse potrebbero valere anche per la critica d'architettura. Nell'intervista Elkins sostiene che il suo architetto favorito è l'artista Anish Kapoor. Quello che invece non ama affatto è Frank Gehry. L' intervista e tutte le numerose altre comparse sulla presS/Tletter sono raccolte all'interno della sezione Interviews di Channelbeta http://www.b-e-t-a.net/~channelb/interviews/. Tra i prossimi intervistati l'architetto Paolo Desideri, il critico d'arte Giuseppe Frazzetto e il direttore di Exibart Massimiliano Tonelli. LPP: Please briefly introduce yourself ... JE: I am an historian, but I was once a painter. I have a graduate degree in painting, so I have always remembered the critiques I got as a student. The longer I worked in art history, the more I realized art criticism is not included in art history--except as a subject of historical interest. LPP: What happened to art criticism? Why do you think that criticism is becoming weak? Why critics today prefer to describe instead of taking a stand or having a position? JE: It's a very difficult question! If I had to pick one answer, I'd say that many critics and artist believe in a kind of pluralism that they think prevents comparisons of different styles and manners. Then, if I had to pick a second answer, I'd say that after Pop art many artists have felt that history--art history--has nothing much to say to them. Both positions are "enabling": they let artists do what they want, without worrying about the past. LPP: Who are your favourite critics and why? I saw that you do not quote many Italian critics in your book ( if I remember well, only Bonami, Celant and Longhi are rapidly quoted in your book). Why? JE: Well, despite the fact that my PhD is in Italian art theory, it's been almost twenty years since I worked in that field, and my Italian has become very poor. I'd love to know more about Italian art critics. Can your readers recommend some? (I am not a big fan of Celant, by the way: I don't think he argues cogently, and I don't find that his sense of history is very acute.) LPP: In your book there are three suggestion to improve art criticism...Please could you describe them? After you published your book, have you thought at some others criteria? JE: Briefly I think critics should try to understand (a) why they do not judge broadly and ambitiously--why they don't try to write "big books" or understand large portions of twentieth-century art; (b) what their own judgments are; and (c) where they got those judgments--since most of us aren't original, although we would like to think we are. LPP: Do you think that the problems that affect art criticism are similar to the ones that affect architectural criticism? JE: Yes; I think they are parallel universes. Architectural criticism has its own dogmas, its own theories, and its own journalists who do not judge. And, by the way, music criticism is also a parallel case. LPP: Who are your favourites architects now? JE: My favorite: Anish Kapoor! My least favorite: Frank Gehry. Right now, as I write this, I am looking down from my office window in Chicago at the new Kapoor sculpture and the new Gehry auditorium "bandshell." I dislike Gehry because he no longer innovates. I am not, however, the first to call Kapoor an architect. I heard this story: At a dinner in Chicago, when these two new works were about to be unveiled, Gehry supposedly said: "Anish, your work is magnificent: I deheby declare you are an archictect!" And Kapoor supposedly replied: "Fuck off!" Intervista a cura di Intervista pubblicata sulla PresS/Tletter n°27 del 2004 Lettera con notizie e eventi di architettura, cultura, arte, design a cura di Luigi Prestinenza Puglisi |