Interview with Wouter Davidts

Interview with Wouter Davidts Amsterdam, April 10th 2010 Christian Madrid Alonso with Cecilie Støttrup Nielsen and Kim Ouweleen

Art critic Wouter Davidts is professor of Modern Art History at the VU University in Amsterdam since 2009. Despite his young age, Davits is part of the most distinguished art theoreticians in our contemporary scene. He is the author of Bouwen voor de kunst? Museumarchitectuur van Centre Pompidou tot Tate Modern (A&S/books, 2006), the editor of The Fall of the Studio: Artists at Work (Valiz, 2009; With Kim Paice) and CRACK: Koen van den Broek (Valiz, 2010). Davidt’s body of work mainly focuses on the museum, contemporary art and architecture. He furthermore curated exhibitions such as Philippe Van Snick. Undisclosed Recipients at (BK SM Mechelen, 2006) and Beginners & Begetters at Extra City (Antwerp, 2007).

The following text is based on an interview made on date 24th March 2010.

Wouter Davits does not make a division between the figure of the Art historian and the Art critic. He thinks that while historical work taught in Universities can achieve a real critical position, it can also disregard it. Therefore, he does not join the argument which considers the university with no real connection with what is happening in the actual field.

‘I think that practice of writing benefits form both

aspects’ – he suggests. He noticed that nowadays, especially when one is young, there is a necessity to be on the forefront. ‘Then criticism seems to be the most active way of involving with the field’. Although Davidts is obviously interested in Art criticism, he is tending to write less and less critical reviews since he is giving lectures at the VU University. He also invests a lot of time writing books, ones that – as he argues- can work as criticism too. The book about Belgian artist Koen van den Broek for instance, works as an example of both criticism and a sort of promotion for the artist. He considers this kind of work more rewarding than writing reviews, even though, as he puts, ‘’I have learned the skill of writing trough doing reviews’’.

Wouter Davidts describes his type of criticism not as a journalistic one. He argues that although he really likes a certain type of journalism, nowadays ‘there is very little journalism left of any kind of substantial stature’. He also states that as a rule, he only writes about what he likes or what he sees that could be theoretically interesting. After acknowledge that Art criticism in a broad sense, is mostly about ‘recent things’, Davits as an Art Critic, states that ‘’newness’’ is not a task that criticism must assume, and claims the necessity of doing an engaged criticism.

1

Therefore one might say that he joins Duchamp’s statement: "The creative act is not performed by the artist alone; the spectator brings the work in contact with the external world by deciphering and interpreting its inner qualifications and thus adds his contribution to the creative act." (M.Duchamp, The Creative Act, April 1957). He considers that a review can be really damaging if nothing is said, in the sense that criticism is not about ‘’historizing’’ or describing what one can see, but to adopt a research attitude with the work of the artist in order to talk about something that it is at stake.

For the author, writing a review is a task of a big responsibility, because as he says, ‘when you write a review, you are at the same time endorsing a certain artists’.

W.Davidts assures that if he has a method for writing reviews, is an ethic one. ‘I will never write about a negative review in Artforum unless it is really necessary, and then it will not be about a work of an artist, but about demonstrating ‘the stupidity of the whole institutional set-up’. Giving the example of Artforum, Davidts argues how nowadays in some of the most influential Art magazines, it is commonplace not to write devastating reviews: ‘they are so tied up in the economic logic that they cannot do that anymore’. On the contrary, in other Art newspapers such as Le Witte Raaf, one could write the most negative reviews, because as he says, ‘they like to make turmoil and controversy’.

When W.Davidts is working, he does not think in any specific audience.

However, when he is writing books he does have a motive: the students. He tells how once he forced the publisher to make the book in less than twenty Euros, because as he says ‘people has to be realistic when a book is produced [...] people don’t buy books anymore, you have to make things available’. Davits point out that before he starts to write about something he does not have an audience in mind, but when he already started, then a whole strategic logic comes in ‘because one must think where the outcome should end up’.

W.Davits asserts that although in the past he seldom went to speak with the artists prior to write about them, he is now doing it increasingly more. The author notes that within the art world there is ‘a kind of orthodoxy that you always have to speak with the artist’. However, he considers the exhibitions as a sort of ‘artifact’ where decisions might be extracted from. The author thinks that critics can say something about artist’s works, which artists might completely contradict: ‘In the critical work, I think that is the nice position; is not about truth’.

2

W.Davidts asserts that nowadays an autonomous critique does no longer exist. ’As soon as you start working in the art world you are completely bound up, but in a positive sense, it is a relational field’. The author points out that is not a matter of autonomy but a matter of taking a certain distance you have to install in the work. In relation to the function that criticism can adopt in regard to political and social aspects, W.Davidts suggests that Art critique does not have a task, but a lot of implications. He notes how nowadays ‘solid criticism has no place anymore’ and attacks a common tendency in writing criticism that consist of ‘just merely describing and promoting’. Thus, he pleads for a real public discussion about culture, one that according to him ‘is currently largely and largely more absent’. The author conceives that only obligation the Art critics have is ‘to pay attention to what is being produced in your own cultural field’. And in this field, W.Davidts maintains that criticism is a very important factor since ‘pushes forward the intellectual work’. Furthermore, he asserts that criticism has the capacity of advancing critical thinking and works as a mediator between the work itself and the audience. In his opinion, the best criticism is being done in books, in ‘the substantial authored ones’. Amongst other Art magazines, W.Davidts reads Flash Art, Freeze, ArtForum, DeWitte Raaf, and Metropolis. He think Art critiques do not read journals, the artists do. They “just scan if they need a review for a work”.

Although W.Davidts does not consider himself as a very skilled curator, the true is that he has curated two exhibitions. ‘I am not interested in making shows just because of the artwork. I only have a completely theoretical interest in the show’. He describes his task as a curator as a sort of creator of “theoretical ensembles”. He is mainly interested in the exhibitions with a lot of historical and critical work. Talking about the educational / discursive turn, Davidts think that is a very positive evolution.

He asserts that nowadays is no longer possible to talk about the apparent monopoly on discourse Art historians seems to have. W. Davidts thinks that the current research ‘frenzy’ in the arts involved in an economic logic is far more problematic than the shift that the eucational / discursive turn entails. The author notes how currently it is patent an instrumentalization of the institutional apparatus towards an ‘apparently research attitude’ that most of the times results in exhibitions with a lack of content, impact and relevance.

Referring to the influence that the emerging figure of the independent exhibition makers or “Curators” might have in the Art world, and hence studying the

3

current situation of the Art Historian, Davits argues that this phenomenon brought certain benefits to a very little extent, as well as negative aspects. In response to the latter, W.Davidts adopts up a very critical position towards some “trends” that involves the museum institution in this era of globalization.

In his book “The Fall of the Studio” – Artists at work, W.Davidts accurately argue that it was in the sixties when the traditional artist studio started to disappear.

He furthermore asserts how nowadays the dispersal of the artistic workplace across globalized networks has led to the widespread acknowledgement of the post-studio era. Since the sixties up to now one may already notice that the conception of the Artist studio has significantly changed. He cannot predict how does the impact of the new technologies will affect artist studios in the future, but he argues that while some artists are nowadays working exclusively with laptops, ‘at the end they all need a place to stay’.

W.Davidts considers that international biennials are mainly a curators phenomenon that in general is not very productive. He argues that its huge resources could be used for far more interesting purposes, for instance writing books. He considers that current biennials are closely linked with concepts such as ‘spectacle’ and ‘entertainment’, and because of that they are involved in an economic logic that dominates these international exhibitions.

Davits is currently working in a book about size and scale. From a very historical yet so critical approach, the author will go back to the second half of the 20th Century to describe a critical framework and vocabulary to speak about the size of the artworks. Amongst other projects, W.Davidts will write about more about studios, the art gallery, the house of the collector, and the Art school. The author will not stop writing about ‘architectural and institutional space’. In a near future, he also will write a monographic book about Belgian artist Luc Deleu.

4

Transcription:

Q. You are a professor of Modern Art History at the Vrije Universiteit, you write books on art and you are an art critic, and you have also curated some exhibitions. How do you situate yourself in the art world? Are you/do you consider yourself more of an art historian or an art critic?

Well...hmmm...I don't really make a division between the two. I think we learned historical work has very critical capacity or faculty and the same goes the other way around. You often see that within, let's say that, well there's different art worlds, eh? I think I function in a few of them. (laughs) And sometimes solid historical work is disregarded as something that's at (?) the university and has no real connection with what is happening in the actual field. But I don't really believe that. I think that practice of writing (...?) benefits from both aspects. There's obviously, you know, especially when you are young, you have like necessity to be on the forefront. And then criticism seems to be like the most active way of involving with the field. (But) I think the more I work the more I start to believe, also, you know, taking up this position (*mumble) to look over a staff of ten people and seeing what their work is about has initially But I truly believe that that work has a very critical, in terms of criticism, capacity. That doesn't mean that they all DO criticism, that they write reviews for journals and magazines. So I think that's sort of the basic division, or difference that is necessary to make. I tend to write less and less review, critical reviews, but that's just a matter of time. If I could I would probably write more, because I enjoy it a lot, it keeps you sharp, you have to see things. And that could be a book review or an exhibition review, doesn't really matter criticism (?). So ehm, I don't really have a real definition of what my position is. I don't find it very constructive or productive to do so.

Q. The fact that you don't have much time now to write criticism, does that have to do with the fact that you are now for example a professor at the universiteit?

Yes, very very literally “yes”. And also because I invest more in different ehm...well I think writing books, you also have different books; authored books. Those take a long time. They take about six or seven years to write, like my own proper book. Well I produced a few others. In the meantime (?). And I think they serve to some extent also as criticism. I can show you things that I've made. They were on the website. This one for example, it's about this contemporary artist, working at the moment, having a big show at the S.M.A.K. in Gent. So it wasn't easy. I think it's partly criticism and at the same time you're just promoting it of course. But every review does that anyway. So I consider this type of work probably also more rewarding than writing reviews. I like the idea of spending..this took a year almost..very intensive work. It's a different way of relating to work than doing the galleries, picking on art (?) and sending it to a journal saying “well I'd like to review this”. It's very fun eh..Artforum for example is 550 words, it's absolute fun, to try and say something in 550 words. So it keeps you sharp as a writing..(?)I think I've really learned the skill of writing through doing reviews. And I forced myself not to stop. For example, currently I think I should write a review, because it's too long ago.

Q.How do you define your own position as an art critic?

How would you describe your criticism in regard to the kind of criticism created by journalists and in the other extreme by strong theory?

When you write, how would you describe your criticism? Is it more like journalistic or is it theoretical?

Definitely not journalistic. And I don't mean that condescending. There is a certain type of journalism that I really like. Although I think there's very little journalism left of any kind of substantial stature. But I think I only write about what I like. That's the first rule. If I don't like it I do not write about it. Unless it's so bad, and it's something that I normally like, and it's so badly done, then I write about it as well. So I need to get enthusiastic about something, otherwise I don't. And criticism is mostly about really recent things.

You know, young artists that I have been following for a while and then suddenly make something that I think is worthwile reviewing...

Q. Sorry to interrupt you, but that's really interesting what you say. We read an article for the course, it was an article from October called 'Round Table: The Present Conditions of Art Criticism' and in that article Rosalind Krauss states that one of the essential tasks of the critic is to “scan the horizon for some new blip appearing on it” (page 216). You're saying that you're looking at and following new artists, so do you take into account this kind of 'new thing'?

5

Ehm, no. Newness to me is totally irrelevant I think. Because the artworld is driven by such a craze for newness that I detest it. When I write a review mostly it takes me a year or two years seeing work, and then I decide like “ok this”...because I dont possibly think...so if I'm journalistic or academic..I think I have a very academic stance towards writing reviews. I can see work by an artist that might fascinate me at first, but then I think “well I should know more about it”. I need first to see a catalogue, maybe ses another show, a few other works, read a review that has possibly been written, and then follow on. And then if there's nothing written I need to see more, I need to see the artist. So I think there's a sort of research attitude towards writing reviews. I don't run around and then see something nice and write about it. Because that I think is highly problematic, a lot are just running around and just writing what they see and never substantially....it's not about historisizing work, but you're not being any credit to the work if..a lot of people think that getting a review is already something. I think a review can be really damaging if nothing is said. Because it says a lot about the work I think. Mostly something about the critic, but..I don't scan the horizon to see if something is new. I just encounter stuff that I like and then...mostly for reasons, because you are busy with certain types of work, and then you encounter...I always have the image of a cupboard with artists that I file and then I take one out and write something about them. And I have like way too many. I couldn't possibly write about them in my single life. So it takes a lot of time. And I'm not interested in writig reviews per se, just to scan the field. Only if I feel the necessity to do so.

Q. Could you define or specify your own strategy as an art critic? What’s your approach when you have to review an exhibition? What are your methods?

The answer is I don't have any. (laughs) I think the reviews is allowing yourself t see things and to...mostly it's a test. I see something and I think “well, this could theoretically be interesting”. Then you take it aside, you write it down and memorize it, and you might encounter it a second time. So if there is any method it's about timing. See if something lasts and if your intuition is not betrayed by some...you might have some intuition that an artist is interesting and then you see a second piece and think “hmm nah it's probably not worth it”. Also, if you...it probably goes back to the positioning question, at some point, after working about 12, 13 years, actively writing, you gain a position at some point. It means that if you write a review, you endorse a certain artist. And I find that quite a task and responsibility. So if I write for Artforum for example, it means that if I say to a wide international audience that this Belgian artist is interesting, it's a statement. With sometimes very severe consequences. Mostly to the benefit of the artist, that potential collectors might maybe then decide, because suddenly they get a stamp “Artforum”. It's really a big responsibility. So if I have a method, it's an ethic one. It's about ethics. I will never write a very negative review in Artforum, unless it's really necessary. And then it will not be about an artist's work, but mostly about an institution. So if they mess up, then I write about it. The thing is, Artforum will never allow me to do so. Because they have a policy. The very rarely publish devastating reviews. They can't anymore, they're so tied up in the economic logic that they can not do that anymore.

The Witte Raaf by contrast is a place where I could write the most devastating reviews if I would like to.

And they would love it. Because they like to make turmoil and controversy. And I don't like that as a goal, it's no use to make controversy per se. But I remember writing Wron(?) review, which I'm still very proud of somehow. Because when I worked with the institution, it took me a few years, because I refused to work with them because I was so infuriated. Still are. You know, after working with them I know I was right back then, that they are absolutely utterly unprofessional. You can find it on the Witte Raaf on the Paul McCarthy show in S.M.A.K. I just have to tell you the context, why I wrote it; I love the work of Paul McCarthy. But it's not something that I would write about. Because I don't feel skilled enough or have the background to do that. But I had seen a very important retrospective of McCarthy in '99 maybe or earlier, in New York. Then I had seen the show in White Chapel in London in 2003 or 2004. And another one in Van Abbe in 2007, or well I don't exactly remember. But I had seen a few big shows of Paul McCarthy. And I knew there was a touring exhibition, it was actually the one from Haus der Kunst to White Chapel, then some place in Oslo I think and then to S.M.A.K again. It was the show that consisted of the three boats, have you seen the show? The pirate show, the pirates of the Caribbean. And it had three boats, big boats. One was this relatively small row boat and then a plastic one and a steal one.

And the thing is that they took over the show, but didn't realize that their space wasn't big enough. So suddenly they get a show, literally, at their front door, being delivered, and they realize that they can not fit in one of the three ships. And so they leave out one. And then they give the space to Paul McCarthy, and Paul McCarthy, well he obviously..pff..he doesn't care. But what he did, he actually completely destroyed the whole interior of the museum. He cut out walls with a chainsaw, you know..he took this condition as a pretext for really messing about. Which I thought was brilliant. But, you know, everybody in the artworld KNEW what was happening. And there was a big show at Midline(?), and they didn't talk to each other. So McCarthy has probably been flying from Los Angeles first class, I don't know how many times, two institutions paying, and not dealing with eachother. So then you think like “there needs

6

to be a review”. So I didn't write about the show at all, but just demonstrated like a detective almost the stupidity of the whole institutional set-up. They were devastated at the S.M.A.K. I think the final sentence was really like a sledge hammer. And I thought that was necessary to do. And that's not really a review, but then I take up a position and then you use your voice to say that the situation is unacceptable. We have people also who...and it's fine sometimes to really write that an artist is completely diverting. But I think it depends, well I don't like that type of criticism. Unless there's really something at stake. I thought at that point what was at stake is that an institution was really abusing their money. It also meant that the exhibition had cost, I don't know, twice the budget. That it meant that they had to resize the budget of the year that was coming. For an artist that has been shown quite extensively in a 3 kilometers distance. And then realizing that they hadn't thought about the implications of the show. It's utter stupidity. Then I write such a review. I think when I started I had more the competitive attitude and wanted to write stuff about artists and saying that they were doing foolish things.

I don't do that anymore.

Q. When you write, who is your audience?

No audience.

Q. You just write for yourself?

Yes, no one in mind. But when I write, when I make books I do have a motive. In the sense that I...no it's not an audience. This for example, I forced the publisher t make it less than 20 euros. I said it can not cost more than 20 euros. 19,50. And she understood it and obviously it's working. Student need to be able to buy it, it needs to be the cost of a cd. Because you have to be realistic when you produce books.

People don't buy books anymore. They do, but to some extent. People like to give 40 euros, 60 euros, to go to a concert of the Rolling Stones. To buy a book of 20 euros, that's too much. You have to be realistic. So if I have an audience it's in a sense that I like to think of if you make something you have to make things available.

Q. But you mentioned students for example. You just said “students”. Is that then again the academic side? When you wrote this book, was it more for an academic audience?

I think there is two things. The first is just the trigger why you want to write something. Then I have no audience. The only thing I write is because I like to, because I feel the necessity and it's totally personal.

No strategic reasons. I never write because I think it will position me on the market. I think that's the worst. Because you have a lot of people that really plan their carreer, make a book on a subject because they know it will make their career. It's probably smart, but you don't sleep well if you do that.

So you have no audience, no strategy. But when I'm starting to write something, when I think of it, then of course a whole strategic logic comes in because otherwise you are stupid and making things without thinking where this should end up. For example, this book, well not to brag but I'll be on the radio tonight at Vpro “De Avonden” at 8 o'clock to discuss this book. So I'm not going to do it now at length, but one of the things I wanted to produce a book...because it's a young artist, he is 35, ten years of work, and he's very well respected by young artists in Vlaanderen. Because being so young, and White Cube Gallery had him in real international (?), so he's kind of a model. So you need to make a book that they can afford. That students or artists can afford. This costs 29 euros, so it's cheap. Coloured pages, thick, I think 150 works. I don't know the exact amount, I have to check it for tonight. And 6 essays, so I think it's a very generous book. And then there is of course, it's more about what you want to produce as an object. Because I think even lucid (?) collectors might like this, but I don't make books for them. But it's nice of course if the collectors like it. A collector came to me last week and said to me “it's a BOOK.”.

And I thought “oh that's a good compliment”. But I think that's probably because you have a position at the university. I need to publish of course, there is the publishing frenzy at the university.

Q. I have a question on a review. I don't know if it's a very interesting question, but I'll just ask it anyway. In a review on an exhibition by Pedro Cabrita Reis you wrote “Reis probably realized that there was insufficient play between the steel pergola and the exhibition space for the work to function as an autonomous sculpture”. When I read the “probably”, it functioned a bit as an alarm bell and the first thing that came to my mind was “isn't that dangerous?”. When you use words like “probably” it sounds as if you put words into the artists mouth and ideas into the artists head. So my question is, isn't that dangerous for art critics? Or do you see that as part of being an art critic?

7

Hmmm, that's a good one. No, it's not a bad question at all actually. Ehmm, I have to get back to the review. It was a review at Objective in Antwerp. In discussion with the curators they told me it had been/was a solid sculpture. And then when he came in he ehhh hoe zeg je dat, “demonteren”, he put it into pieces and placed it in the corners. And I don't remember exactly whether they told me. But I think there are several ways of doing criticism. And I seldom, and it's a position eh, people often attack me for it, when I write a review I seldom go speak with the artist. Because then you end up in telling what they might have wanted to do and then...While I consider a show as an artefact. And you can try to see certain decisions. And that's a decision I remember that you could see in the space. That he realized, 'probably', the thing is, well there is something dangerous of course because you project certain ambitions or decisions upon a person. But I think that's the play (dutch: speling) you have in a review.

You can't do that in an academic essay. Then you have to fact-check it. In Artforum they would never allow this. Because they would call up the gallery and ask “did he actually do this or not?”. They don't allow any probablies. But you're right, I think currently I would leave that out. It's a review written in 2003?

Now I wouldn't write that anymore I guess. But I would write the same thing about the work. But then I would check it and ask them “did he actually decide it because of this?”. And then again it's so...for example I went to Lisbon this weekend to see a show by a Belgian artist that I want to write a substantial essay about. And suddenly the curator started to tell me all sort of things about how this artist makes work, while I know him very well. I know the artist very well, we've spent evenings together. But we never discussed how he actually makes the work. Well, now for the essay I probably will go there and ask him “how did you actually do this?”, but at the same time you don't always have to get the whole explanation; how something is made, what the decisions are. When you go to a show with the curator, you always get the whole side story. And often I'm totally not interested to know. Because you see a show and you see a series of decisions that you might detect and try to make reason out of. I think that's the liberty. For example I wrote a big article on Gregor Schneider, in which I make a series of assumptions about what his work is. I'm not saying Schneider is like that, but I think the work allows me to say this. And then someone asked me “did you speak to Schneider?” , so I said “No. Should I?”, and then “Yes, you should!”. And there is this kind of orthodoxy that you always need to speak with the artist.

I think I do it more and more now. For example Koen (van den Broek; Crack) I know very well. But for example when I wrote this piece on Buren..I know Buren very well but I know that if I would test out the argument, I would get into a severe fight. Because he would deny it. And then I can not write it? I don't think so. I think I can say something about his work, which an artist might completely contradict. In the critical work, I think that's the nice position; it's not about truth. But you are right about the “probably”. (all laugh)

Q. But for example in a journal like Artforum, do you think that the 'scientific truth' plays a role in why you wouldn't be able to write the “probably”? Or mainly prestige?

No it's not about scientific truth. It's just that they can not allow themselves to have any mistakes. But still they do, they happen often. Because it's such an international platform and visibility that things need to be correct, that's all. And they need to have the correct dates, if you refer to another show, it really needs to be precise. And it's nice to work with them, they really follow up. They really make the people crazy at the galleries. If they write a review, everyone goes to check five times the size of a work or something.

Q. Criticism had traditionally been independent of both institutions and markets. What do you think about the level of independence of critique today? Do you think autonomous critique exists?

No. There is no autonomy whatsoever. As soon as you start in the art world you're completely bound up (relacionado estrechamente, ligado). But in a positive sense, it's a relational field (?). Well for example now I went to Lisbon; these guys paid my flight and a hotel night. I said “but I'm coming anyway”. “But let us pay your flight!”. I said “well that's fine, I don't mind” (all laugh). But not that I would let myself..if I would not have liked the show I would not write about it. And I would just plainly say to them. I do not feel obliged because they pay my flight. It's not because I attend a dinner in a gallery that I should write about the artist. I tend not to go. The first year I was writing for Artforum I got invited to every single gallery dinner in Belgium. I didn't go to any of them. Because I don't see the necessity to go there, I can spend an evening much nicer with friends than go to a gallery dinner. And the relationship...of course if you engage with each one of my best friends. But I think if you read the book you won't find it...(some inaudible mumbling). Just a matter of taking a certain distance in writing. And it's not a matter of autonomy, it's just a matter of critical distance you have to install in the work. No..because I think it happens that you encounter people, you often encounter artists, and you have like a nice conversation over work and you say “well I'd like to see your work”. And then you go to their studio and it's sometimes

8

nice and sometimes not. It just works like that. And I think it's the nice part as well. I think it's really due to your own personal position to really like the whole fancy part about the art world. It is nice of course but it doesn't make a life, you can't make a life with it. And I think the friendships produced are not completely autonomous, it's not possible. Like the 60's that you can be totally, like not bound to the institutions, etc.

Q. What do you think should be the function of the art critic in regard to political, social aspects?

I don't think we have a task, but I think there are a lot of implications. No, the task is first one level higher up, and that is completely deteriorating, is that in newspapers, so to speak Vlaanders, criticism has no place any more, solid criticism. Now you have only journalism of the worst sense, which is just merely describing and promoting. But really a public discussion about culture in general is largely and largely more absent. All newspapers in Vlaanders are media sponsors of all the institutions. So how possibly could you ever write like a devastating review of a show. For example Paul McCarthy show..they had a exclusivity contract with one of the main newspapers, that they could publish first the big interview with McCarthy and a preview of the show. That's a market deal, so..I think we are completely dependant on how they decide. While a journal like De Witte Raaf, that's a completely other position. They're publicly funded. And then you have a task..hmm, “task”? Well there is a task in the sense that I think it's necessary to cover, to pay attention to what's being produced in your own cultural field. I think that's an obligation we have, to speak about the efforts of friends and colleges. If one of my colleges produces a book that I think really worked well, I might try to write a review about it, in a journal. The fact that you construct a field, then criticism is a very important factor. It's not only about making shows and work.

The criticism really pushes forward the intellectual work. I think it's one of the nicest things to study, if you look at the mid sixties, how people like Jorid Flavin (?), Smithson, Mel Bochner, all the guys who were really writing, by the fact that they were and writing and making art, they just gigged themselves light years ahead in relation to the ones who were only producing in their studios, letting the others speak for them. There's a very nice piece by Mel Bochner on the writings of Donald Judd, in an issue of Artforum. This is an artist and he wrote a whole book, between (?) and '95, all reviews. For this course I think you should read it, it's amazing, amazing. And when they republished it a few years ago , Mel Bochner wrote a review, about this book. And he said something like “We realized we were inmates, but we didn't speak to each other through the bars”, and he uses a series of metaphors. I think it's not a task but one of the things criticism can do, is really advance the critical thinking. And that's the fun part if that really happens, that...Well, one of the things that has been happening to me a lot, is that when I write the review that the artist comes to me half a year later and asks me “I'm having a catalogue, I want you to write the catalogue”. And that means that your review has really stirred up something within the work or within the thinking of an artist. And then I think that it's interesting that I DO NOT speak with the artist.

Because they are often far more happy with the review than if I would have called them up and ask “what did you want to..etc”. I just look at the show, I try to distil the reason and maybe sometimes I'm wrong, wrong in the sense that I might see something in the work. But that's the liberty and the beauty of artworks, that you can see something completely different in it. Someone might be infuriated about what you write about it, but the fact that I saw it .someone else might see something else.

Q. You spoke about the situation in Vlaanders. What about art criticism going on in Amsterdam, for instance?

Hm I think I don't read it too much. I can't really say. You have a journal like Jewbleit (?), which I think is super nice, the work they do. Because their ambition was to fill in the gap and have really young people write about what they see when they go to galleries and shows. Because there's so many things and so little space to write reviews. Metropolis M, what else is there? De Witte Raaf, and the regular newspapers. All these shows, all these gallery shows, they never get a review. And to some extent that's a pity. But I can't really say, I'm not really following it either.

Q. What kind of magazine or journal is, according to you, the best art criticism today? Why? Hm..good one. I used to read a lot of journals and magazines. But currently, being here, (laughs) it's been less and less. And the little time I have left to read, I read books. I think the best criticism is being done in books. Substantial authored books. Really critical studies of current developments. Well I think you have short reviews, but a nice long article on an artist, I think that's very good criticism too. Doesn't

9

always have to be the review format. You have the regular ones; Flash Art, Freeze, Artforum, De Witte Raaf, Metropolis. Those are the ones I would consult. Art in America I don't (?mumblemumble).

I think it's probably better to ask to the artists than to us. Because they scan all the journals, we don't.

We scan if we need a review for a work.

Q. You also curated shows, for instance Philippe Van Snick. Undisclosed Recipients in 2006, and Beginners & Begetters in 2007. What kind of connection is there for you between theory and practice?

I think, hm, It's a bit fashionable to say probably..but I do consider that I have a kind of 'practice'. Which has many different parts; writing, but also teaching. And curating is something I do very rarely. But I love it. But I'm not a curator, and I don't think I'm a very skilled curator either. I like to work with people doing shows. So for example the Philippe Van Snick show was amazing. Because it was old photographs that he had kept in the studio for almost 30 years and never showed. And they didn't have any status as artworks. So a super interesting show to make, theoretically. So I think I'm not interested in making shows just because of the artwork. I only have a completely theoretical interest in the show. He actually did ask me to curate the show and I said no. There's no reason why I would do that. Because it's hanging, and I'm not interested in hanging shows. While in the end I think I've been quite influential in the set-up of the show. In helping to appoint another independent curator form London who made a brilliant show I think. Because he knows how to hang, the skill, I don't know. But the show with Philippe, the theoretical interest to me was how...as an academic I'm interested in the photographs and I think we should show them. But they're no artworks, they've never been sold, he never gave them any status.

Often he didn't know when he made them, he knew the series, but you know, it was a lot of guesswork.

And the problem was, he is a well established artist in Vlaanders, but not internationally. But my main interest was to produce a book, which I think is very relatively satisfying and I'm not happy with the essay. It's a co-authored essay and I'm quite disappointed actually about the essay. And the book is, bluhhh, not very good either. But the show...we never managed I think to escape the fact that suddenly these photographs gained the status of artworks. It's inescapable anyway. But I think we made a show that didn't betray their status. That was interesting, to produce with the artist and to reinforce them and say “you're not going to hang them one by one and just make a picture show with post stamps. We're going to do something, we'll make ensembles.” And that was fun, because all the pictures came in and at some point framed, very nicely framed, which is already one step...but they looked nice so that was ok. And then we started to make really spatial, almost 19th century type of hanging, and he completely freaked out in a positive sense. And I said “No you let me do this”, and I made very theoretical ensembles. I studied architecture so I do have some kind of spacial intuition, not that I can't hang. And I made them and then I went home and he hung it together with his wife, and he gave it just a little bit more space. And it looks super, because you could read arguments throughout the show. And the best thing was that a lot of young artists who had Philippe van Snick as a teacher, they all came to the show and they loved it. They understood the show that was not merely a museum show, it was more a show in that type of work. So if I have a curator interest, it's because I'd like to make arguments in shows. And not artists. Because if I would start to, I could probably curate a show every month, because artists would come. Because again, you lend your name and then they like you. There is no intellectual interest for me at all. And Beginners and Begetters was a show about the unbuilt history of art institutions in Vlaanders. And it was very flatual in a sense, there were only tables. And posters printed. We had 5000 euros to make the show, which is rediculous. So I payed everyone who was involved; I think 3000 euros or more went to the graphic designers and to my research assistant. And then we still had 1500 euros to effectively produce it, materially make it. So we just bought ehmm how do you say, “schragen”;when you make a table you just put a plate on these things. And we bought them somewhere in the North of the Netherlands, from a buildingsite, complete of cement, for I don't know 200 euros we suddenly had 150 of them. And then just with the tables, plates, and we printed posters. And that was not a show that was about curating in the sense of putting up artworks, but trying to tell the story. But if I do curating..I'll actually curate a show next year, maybe this summer I'm not sure, in Twente. A lot of American hard edge colorfield painting. A collection that came to one specific museum there. They asked me to do something with them, but I'm not so sure. I don't know if they will be interested to have a theoretical hanging. If they just want to hang the show I will say “you can do it better”, so I'll probably do the symposiums.

Q. That's interesting as well, that they approach you. Because, well, the people know that you have quite a theoretical approach to curating. But this museum asks you.

10

Yes, but there is a colleague here who already made a show with them. And they probably had a conversation about this and then he said that well maybe you should contact Wouter. And yesterday she came, and I think that it was a very difficult conversation. Because I realized from the start that I would push that whole adventure five times further. There's no time, there's no money. So we'll have to do it the other way around. But I think now I have to write a proposol. But I think now I have to write a proposal. It's much easier to write a proposal that is much more radical than being immediately be radical at the first meeting. Because that might frighten people (all laugh). So now I'll probably write a very radical proposal. And the other show is at Stroom, Den Haag, and it's a small, very interesting architecture gallery institution. And they approached me to do a show with Luc Deleu, a Belgian artist.

And I said to them that I'd like to make a show but I'd only do it when we make a book. So currently the show was the least of my interest, we're now investing in the book. That's my aim; to translate the book into the show. To make the show a kind of microscopic, or one fragment of the book and that you spatialize it. Because I think this is a very spatial book. But now the show is not related to the book. I think it will be hyper interesting to produce a show that relates more directly to this book than it does now. And that's the aim to do in The Hague.

Q. In the course we have been discussing the educational/discursive turn, and the leading figure Paul O’ Neil came and gave a lecture about it. In the past, Art Historians seemed to be the generators of discourse. But nowadays everybody produces it: artists, Institutions, curators.

One might say, there has been a shift from canon towards debate. Do you think this shift invokes amateurism?

I don't really care about it actually. I think it's too protective, a bit corporatist that we can think we have sole monopoly on discourse. I think there's a lot of rubbish discourse, but it has always been like that. I think there's a reverse interest, as I'm interested in doing very practical things to be able to make discursive arguments through making shows for example. I don't see why curators might not be interested...ehm...no. The book launch of Paul O'Neill will be here on the 31st of march. I still have to send all the...I haven't received the invitation yet, like digitally. I'll send it to Sophie and you're all obviously very welcome. I did an interview with Daniel Buren, the artist, for that book. On the opposition of curating, it's called 'Teaching without teaching', because he has also been a teacher. And, well I find probably more, far more problematic, but it's very bound up, and I think THAT is the problem, the whole research frenzy in the arts. That everybody apparently is doing research. And that everything is researched, and you have to have a project. And that every show is more and more demonstrating the kind of research 'impact'. And it's all bound up with the big sociacal (?) development is that precisely what research, arts, criticism, writing, used to be, not used to be but..the potential they have is not to be inscribed within the sole economic logic, productive logic. The logic of profit and impact and so on. That people when they try to depict everything as research, there needs to be an outcome. And every projects needs to be some kind of impact and relevance. And a lot of curating moves in that direction and is not allowing works to...there's an instrumentalization that I find highly problematic..much more than rather...I think it's a very positive evolution actually, but I don't think it's very broadly happening.

Much more museums currently produce shows without producing any decent catalogue. That's far more devastating than the fact that curators are setting up symposia and making shows that are symposia..fine! As long as there is content, I'm fine. Why shouldn't they do it? We don't have a monopoly as a university. I think often you see curators talking about loads of shit on symposia, because they don't prepare. And they think they can just speak. And a lot of academics do it as well. So again it's just a matter of ethics. I think it all goes back to if you do something you have to do it properly.

And KNOW the medium you're working with. That's why I don't curate as often, I don't know the medium, I don't have the skills. But I do think by now I start to know how to make a book and how to think up the space of a book. A lot of people make books but they never thought about what it is. You have to really study books, and think and look at catalogues (laughs). And think “what do I think I can add to the current pile of books?�. So I think there's a lot of books being made without thinking, and maybe that's amateurism. But I don't think it's a problem in itself that there's a lot of books. I just don't like that books are badly made.

Q. The next question is kind of relating to the symposia and the discursive turn. One of the other visiting lecturers in our course was Maria Hlavajova from BAK in Utrecht. She explained her own practice as a curator and how BAK functions as an institution. BAK is a perfect example of an art institution that aims at producing discourse and not necessarily exhibitions or canonical formats.

Do you think that this discursive turn is a natural development, is it a good thing or a bad thing?

Do you have any thoughts on that?

11

I think you should judge them upon..I think you should judge people on their ambitions. And if they prove it, if they can live up to the ambition. And I think BAK did do quite well. It's not my position, but I only have one and there are many others possible. What might be a problem, but then again they'll need to be smarter, is that they...then again it has to do with the perception and the bigger, broader development. That it can create a smokescreen that others believe in, especially on the policy level. It's quite hard to promote work that is reflective, it takes a lot of time, and so on. But I don't think you can be mad about the fact that others run away with the money. I'm not sure about this, I need to think about this. But I don't think it's a bad thing what Maria is doing at all. Unless (?) you're sure it produces good shows. And I think it's a pity that eh...well I think spaces like BAK should be able to do that. I think when big institutions start to do that as well and really lose focus on the objects, then something is wrong. A place like BAK, they can't collect anyway, they don't need to show. There are many other spaces where art works are shown. I think it's nice to test it out and maybe it proves not uninteresting but not really lasting in about 5 or 10 years. But at least they tried, and I think they try honestly and sincerely what they do. I think Maria is very sincere about her position, so (need to only...?) to respect the position and maybe discuss the specifics. But I have a very specific position as well, and a lot of people that don't like it either and would speak up to me about this book. But that's fine, I know my position and if you don't like it that's your problem somehow. Unless you give me very solid arguments what would be wrong about it, and then I can learn from them. I know that a museum director in Vlaanderen said “it's not interesting to make monographic shows any more”. I thought “al right, that's a statement”. And I'm fine, eh, if he doesn't want to do that any more..but so far the shows I've seen at that particular museum are totally unconvincing. Then I think he has a real problem. If the alternative is not good enough...so that good be a good subject for a review. But I do think that a lot of young artists actually really like good service (?) shows of their peers. They can learn a lot, much more than seeing a show about young Chinese artists working in Beijing...It's like going to a fashion show..it's like “pffft” and then it's over.

There's no thinking or no solid study. You can see maybe 15 or 20 possible options of a practice,ok that's fine. And those shows are good, but I'm much more interested in having solid shows with a lot of historical and critical work.

Q. Since the 70's there has been a shift towards the more independent exhibtion makers, or “curators” as they are called today. The role of the curator has been often associated with being an artists himself, using other artists and their artworks for their own ideas or for the educational higher good of the institutions. Also, curators and artists themselves tend to become their own critics. How do you think this changing of positions affects the art world, and where does that leave the art historian?

That's again a matter of if you define your own position. I don't consider myself either a curator, or a critic or an art historian. I work at the university, and the field that I'm working in allows me, or necessitates a series of media to use. And an exhibition is a very good medium. Mostly I write, because I think that's the thing I know the best. I don't know if I'm the best, but that's what I know the best. That's what I feel confident in doing. Often I allow myself a sidestep and do something..it's also just personally interesting to do that. I think the influence of the whole independent curator, it has benefits and bad aspects. And again it comes to the people who actually do it. And some of them have produced amazing work and other ones are just mimicking the others, blatant epicons (?), totally uninteresting figures. But they make a good living, good for them you know, they can travel and see the whole world. It's nice for them, but my conscience wouldn't allow me to do so. To fly to Dubai, curate a show there...in a political situation which I find highly untenable. That's fine, if people want to do that, it's up to them. And I'm not so sure...I think people who moan or complain about the fact that it completely undermines their position are not reflective enough about their own position. I think you can counter certain developments to a very little extent. There are certain developments that museums for example start to mimic; the flying curator. And that they think that they should produce continuously new shows, things moving, and they concentrate enough any more on like their core business, the presentation, studying and collecting of art works. They think that if they don't have the show changing every other month that people won't come to the museum. I think that's bullshit. But that's the belief now. And where it leaves us, as art historians?

Hmm I think I'm very optimistic, but I'm in a good mood today I guess..I can do the things that I want.

And there are very negative developments. But nevertheless, you can always try...otherwise you should not do it. If it's unproductive or bad.. that you should not do it. And I think there are so many other things still to do that there is not enough time to sit and complain about certain developments. For example, this is really my answer to certain developments; I forced an institution to produce a book with me and then saying that I was not going to produce...No, but they were very very hesitative. And I forced upon them that I was not going to make a catalogue for THEM. No, I said, I'm not going to make a catalogue for you. And that was really something, I said No, I want to make an autonomous book, and you can finance it. Go finance it. And they didn't live up to their word, which I expected them to do. Maybe they

12

also felt a bit side-tracked, but that's up to them. And then the big Laneau (?), like utterly stupid people of a big publisher, they wanted to join in. And we kept them aside. And again, proven right. And I forced them with the artist, to hire an independent curator, to make it a solid show. And I talked to the artist for months and months and months and saying, you know, “don't do it, don't work with them, don't make the show there”. And he said “but I can't refuse it”, so I said “well ok if you can't refuse it, you should do it on your own conditions”. I think I almost sounded like his dealer or like his public relations officer. But I think as an art historian you know what it means to have a big service (?) show of ten years of work. I said “Ok, If I get along, if you engage me(?) to produce the book, then I want the book to be something which is different than the kind of quickly produced things you can find at any museum currently. And I found a publisher that is willing to do this, who wants to invest, and we made a book that is selling like hell currently. And so I think it's really up to the belief op people thinking that you have to follow the trends. I think if you take up a certain position and follow your own ethics and say “well, I can't do this”. You know, there are certain things I can not do because people don't want to go along in the kind of conditions that I ask for, or demand sometimes. But I think that's the only way to work. There are too many people that think that you have to work like the others do, and that's the way of doing things. Same goes with the university. If you think that you have to act like the university says you to, then it's sad, and you can better stop I think. Also the art world, there is too much belief about...they say “ah it's such a little world”.

Well, the world of butchers is a very little world as well, you know. The butchers in Amsterdam are very protectionist as well. Just depends on your position and the attitude.

Q. In your book “The Fall of the Studio” – Artists at work, you accurately argue that it was in the sixties when the traditional artist studio started to disappear. Furthermore, you assert how nowadays the dispersal of the artistic workplace across globalized networks has led to the widespread acknowledgement of the post-studio era. Since the sixties up to now one may already notice that the conception of the Artist studio has significantly changed.

How do you think does the impact of the new technologies will affect artists studios in the future?

To what extend?

I can't predict. It's been shortly the logic of this book; I thought that in a lot of criticism they used the word post-studio without thinking about it. It's just one of these buzzwords that enter discourse. And nobody thinks about it. Nobody knows who coined it anyway. I'm working on institutions and places, so I thought it was utterly fascinated by artists studios, super interesting places. From a very romantic and a very analytical point of view at the same time. So this book is written from a very critical necessity that I felt we had to dig through this term and see where it came from and diversify. I will never say how it will be in the future, never. That's one of the most dangerous and tricky things; to predict where art will go.

Or how it will evolve. I think we end the introduction saying that there is a current evolution which we think is very damaging. The idea of a workplace which is physical is being eh...precisely because people think that they can think that all artists will work on laptops. I don't think so! Most of them that I know actually don't. Some of them do, yea they all have a laptop..and if you just look at the way we work.

Someone who tells me he can write on an airplane, who can write while travelling, in the lobby or in the terminal. Yes, you can do work there, but you know, you can't do that all the time. You need some kind of place to stay. And there are a few people who actually do. But they're actually perverse. If they pronounce that as the new measure. I think Hans Ulrich Obrist is perverse, totally totally perverse.

Because he sets a standard of being able to produce, I don't know, 30 books a year? And 50 shows and about 30 interviews. That's humanly impossible. Only if you have like a battery of assistants and you just produce and produce and produce. And it's such a standard for production which I think is perverse. And under the guise of research! Again...and historical work. He's the most fake art historian you can possibly find. (we laugh) No, it's true, it's true! I totally detest him. And I think he's been...I was at the poetry marathon at the Serpentine Gallery. That's the worst smokescreen you can ever see! People reading poetry for 24 hours. What's the use, you know? Can you listen to poetry for like half an hour, continuously? The poem takes you 5, 10 minutes, then you go back to it again, you rest, you look through the window, you maybe smoke a cigarette...it's totally denying the identity of the things you're working with. And what he does..of course he can pull a card and have 50 people flying over from all over the world...I think the dinner must be nice that they have there. Content wise it's about nothing.

NOTHING at all. And then comes the book with all the poems that have been read that very same day.

It's the same recipe. And if you have the budget you can do this. But it's totally, totally fake. And that I think is really damaging. Because a lot of people see this and of course it's glimmering, it's fashionable, and then they think they should do something similar. And then you get like a catalysing effect that it's only about producing, and having many names, and who is coming, and having enough fashionable names in your book. In my book there are not many fashionable names...well Philip Ulsprung (?) is probably a fashionable name, and John Wood(?) maybe. But it's uninteresting, no it's luck because

13

people see Ulsprung and then they looked up the book. But if Philip wouldn't have written a good essay, it wouldn't have been in the book, it's very simple. A lot of people make books because it's nice to have like a well sounding name on the cover. And that's the strategic part that comes in you know. If you make a book, I might consider that as well, but only if it has an added value. I think that's the kind of discursive turn that might happen in the show of Obrist; he always digs up an old artist. And you know you have to give him a certain credit. He was the first one to go and interview all the curators just before they died; Pontesutain (?), Szeemann, Beren (?). That's smart. But if you read the interviews, he always asks the same questions, he always has his own agenda. Which is fine to a certain degree. And he's the most influential person in the art world! Proclaimed by...ehhm..that's another person I once wrote another person I wrote quite a devastating piece about, it's called Hysteria Station after Utopia Station.

You can find it on De Witte Raaf as well.

Q. Could you please tell us something about your latest project?

There are a few. The most personal one is a book on size and scale. Which is a historical book, but with a very contemporary, critical perspective. It's about the fact that nowadays the museum audiences have never been so big, museums have never been so big. There is like an inflation of scale, things have never been so big. Art works are of ridiculously big size. It started with the Unilover (?) series, at the Tate Modern, Turbine Hall. Now Ai Weiwei is apparently the person who is going to open in September or October next year. And now it was Miroslaw Balka with massive pieces in the Turbine Hall in London.

And I had a fellowship in London, so I studied the series. And as I studied it, it became a much bigger project. So I'm going back into history, trying to write up a vocabulary to speak about the size of artworks.

The question is mostly “when is something to big?”, but something can be too small as well. So when is something out of scale? When do we say “the size of this is not right”?. And it's very difficult, because an artwork has no size, there is no size of an artwork which is standard. So I'm going back into history, like second half of the 20th century to try and describe a critical framework and vocabulary to speak about the size of artworks. That's the first project. It's a long term, very slow book project that I work through a series of articles and then I compile it a book.

My life project actually is to...I made the book on museums, Bouwen voor de Kunst?, now this size and scale book came in between. But I want to make a book about studios. This is a collection of essays that I want to write on myself. And then one about the gallery. And then about the house of the collector. And then I will be 60 I think, and then I'm done. And maybe I want to write about the artschool, maybe that will be the last one. About those spaces of the artwork, and how we can describe them. Circumscribe space without ever saying...if you read Bouwen voor de Kunst to the end..you know, I once had a discussion with architecture students and they were frustrated because I didn't tell them how they actually had to design the museum. I'm not going to say how a studio will be like. You can circumscribe the complexity of the space. Same with the gallery. Or the house of the collector, that's the one I look the most forward to. To really go and see how people live with art. How can you live with art? So the architectural space and the institutional space. And then a few smaller things, but the biggest one is actually similar to this...(points to CRACK I think) Well, Luc Deleu, he's a Belgian late career artist.

There is no solid book about him, but a beautiful body of work, an incredibly body of work. 40 years of work. So we want to make a book about that practice. And that comes along with the show in The Hague. I think those are the main projects, apart from some articles, that I would like to do. And then I have to teach you know (laughs), doing millions and millions of administration at the university.

Q. One last question. We were thinking about asking you something related to biennials, because your main attention is architecture, spaces and now you are also focussed on the size of artworks and exhibitions. So what do you think about this tendency of giant biennials, with the globalisation and artists represented in the biennials from all over the world?

I don't think it's very productive. And I think it takes up a lot of resources that could be used for far more interesting purposes. But I think it's again on the art world itself, the curators mostly. Because they make politicians believe that it's necessary to do so. And a lot of people make a living out of it, don't forget that.

It's a big economy. But I think there are a lot of other things that suffer from the fact that so much money goes into events. The cultural policy of a lot of countries is to invest in festivals, because the collateral economic effect of festivals is a lot higher. I think that's really a devastating development. Because it means that long term investments that do not pay off immediately...if you organize a festival you will know that all the pubs and the restaurants in the vicinity, suddenly have doubled their turnover. It's very simple. That makes the citizens happy. Producing a book or a research product takes up 5 years and then maybe has a show and a catalogue that needs another 10 years to sink in, and maybe only attracts a quarter, not even, of the audience of a biennial. But the thing is, if you invest in culture, is it more like

14

entertainment and the fact that more people go and see art. But what do they actually get from it? A nice afternoon? They could as easily go to the kermis (english: fair/fairground). And I don't want to be degrading, but I think it's a good thing that never as many people have seen art as today. I think it's a good thing. But it depends if it's only about broadening the audience. There is a limit to that, there is absolutely a limit. And also because the type of work you can show, the wider the audience gets, the smaller the type of work will be. And it means that really avant-garde work hasn't got a chance any more.

Because it's too difficult , or not spectacular enough, not entertaining enough. Often they use festivals to invest in infrastructure, they use it as an alibi or a trigger. And Beginners and Begetters was really about the necessity also to invest in infrastructure, but from a knowledgeable point of view that you think about what the community might need.

15