"The actions of Deana Lawson, Aperture, and Frieze raise critical questions about the relationship between living artists and scholarly, critical apparatuses. Do artists understand the clear benefits of myriad views of their work? Is it possible that Lawson and those who would serve as her makeshift publicists are not the best interlocutors for her work? I was an artist and graphic designer before I became an art historian. Even decades after making my professional shift I know that I am not the best interpreter of my visual work.
Such rejections also bring up questions about the editor’s relationship to both artist and writer. Who should have the final word on the writer’screative work? Despite the protestation of the artist, critics and scholars often provide important insights that change how we understand an artist and her oeuvre. A wonderful case in point is Michael Lobel’s essay on Richard Prince’s early work. Not acquiescing to Prince’s disavowal of his early production, the art historian wrote the piece he wanted to write, and the Neuberger Museum, which published the catalog, supported Lobel’s endeavor. The final essay appears with holes where the artist’s images would have been. We should do things like this more often."

From Hyperallergic.

@ UCSB AD&A Museum
janegottlieb.com