Cul´tur`ist
n.1. A cultivator.
2. One who is an advocate of culture.
Hi. Welcome.
I had originally planned to call this thing “The Omnivore.” Apparently, the foody connotations are too strong. But the idea of appetite stands: with your help, The Culturist will be an ever-growing critic’s collective notebook, an open space for a rich stew of ideas, overheard remarks, questions, digressions, arguments, conversations and asides. These, I hope, will occur between myself and artists, other critics, curators, audiences, casual readers and, on occasion, myself (consistency is an over-praised virtue). Sometimes I will just referee. I like the idea of cultivation through debate, of advocating through criticizing. The more voices, the better.
The subject will be culture—mostly New York City culture, but not entirely, and mostly related to arts and letters but not, I suspect, entirely. Nothing encourages tangents like a blog.
Questions? The Culturist is now open for business. Where do you think we should begin?
We could start with a big, evergreen question — like, mmm, I don’t know, Has New York lost its cultural mojo once and for all, for real this time, as opposed to all those other times when it had supposedly lost its mojo?
Or, When did culture become the fig leaf of development in NYC, or has it always been that way, and how is it changing the type of art and art institutions that exist here?)
Or we could start with small one — one that always (embarrassingly) causes my mind to empty when I am inevitably asked it after people find out I’m a critic: Seen anything interesting lately?
First come, first served …
May 21st, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Congratulations, enjoy your comments more often then not. Never been a blogger, but may become one now. Dialogue is exciting if we remember that they are opinions not facts.
As far as restaging works, I participated in conducting/directing one. I helped restage Merdith Monk’s PLATEU SERIES at Sarah Lawrence,several years ago. I was in the original cast, however , it made me study, relive, reconstruct, reconceptualize the work. I was lucky to work with wonderful students that ‘took’ to the organic- yet specific work process . All in all it was a postive experience and gave the students/performers an insight into approaching the ’set’ choreography as individuals. like Meredith’s process. The audience also received the vision. People that had seen the original said it matched .
Meredith .. a living artist was involved in the casting which made sense since the piece played on the archtypes of 3 women meeting their death. Each woman had their own quality and was reflected in their look as well as their actions.
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:06 am
OMG. Congrats!
Umm, yes, my mind always goes blank too when people ask me that.
By definition, I would have to say that the Murikami exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum, which I “saw lately”, was “interesting,” but I find his work–generally–doesn’t create enough of a distance between art and the real.
Art, by definition, is false. In this sense, Murikami’s art isn’t “Art”, it’s anime, which is already a part of our culture. The difference between Murikami and Warhol (I’m only comparing them because others are) is that Warhol made paintings of cans, or he made boxes that looked like Brillo boxes but weren’t Brillo boxes. It’s a subtle difference but one that is vital to distinguishing Art from the rest of culture. Call it personal preference if you need to.
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:09 am
Of course, I mean “Murakami”. Welcome to the blogging.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Hmm…Sontag once argued that art by definition was proof. Using exactly your logic–that it is made, not found. The artifice of art, literally its artificiality, is what makes it proof of our own existence. The “made” insinuates “a maker;” everything we make is in our own image. The object proves everything we believe to be true about ourselves and our world. There is no truer truth than the one we create.