The Japanese artist Ken Matsubara had simple, reflective works that seemed to be about the process of memory and the role it plays. The objects were all perfectly formed, but my favorite was this elegant wooden box enclosing a recessed video playing while reflected on the mirrored sides around it.
I wish I was watching waves wash over my feet in just such a fashion. Hmmm, not to pick favorites…but this might be my favorite from Volta.
In comments about art, the term “favorite” (used three times in the above article) is unfortunate, since it points back to you, the observer. The critic should speak solely of the artist’s works, not of the critic’s personal tastes.
I wouldn’t know how to write about art without writing about the experience of it–and the experience of a work of art is inherently personal. Taste is necessarily intertwined in our judgments, which hopefully we will be able to tease out in order to give the reader something of a platform to experience the work his or her self on. But we can never remove ourselves entirely from it.
That aside, using the word “favorite” 3 times in what you charitable called my article is just bad writing. But I posted quickly despite being pressed for time because I thought the video itself worth sharing.
Naturally, we all know that people describe works of art by indicating the effects produced upon themselves. What I was trying to say is that a critic should seek ideally to go beyond that stage by avoiding, as far as possible, all explicit references to herself. Her words should refer solely, purely, to the art object. That might sound Zen, I admit, but that’s what art criticism should be all about.
As for referring to your post (I hate that ugly term) as an “article”, that wasn’t charity, simply a matter of correctly designating a blogger’s specific contribution. Do you see a better term?