Not exact matches
For two
examples of a more effective (not to mention less fictional) narrative
approach, recall John F. Kennedy's justly
famous «Ich bin ein Berliner» speech from 1963.
These shows typically take one
of two
approaches: faithfully reconstructing an exhibition from the past (such as New York gallery Zwirner & Wirth's 2008 redo
of Dan Flavin's 1964 exhibition at Green Gallery), or conceiving
of a new project that uses a past exhibition as a conceptual jumping - off point (for
example, When Attitudes Became Form Become Attitudes at San Francisco's CCA Wattis Institute for Contemporary Arts in 2012, a contemporary riff on the
famous Live in Your Head: When Attitudes Become Form at Kunsthalle Bern in 1969).
In light
of such criticism, throughout the second half
of the 20th century there were art historians / critics who did not follow the
approach of Greenberg and instead remained «passionate, partisan, and political,» to quote Baudelaire's
famous words, in their response to contemporary art: Schapiro in support
of Arshile Gorky, Steinberg in support
of Jasper Johns, and Rosenblum in support
of Frank Stella are conspicuous
examples.
I'm sympathetic to the idea
of having more
of the I.P.C.C. process being fully open (a layered Public Library
of Science - style
approach to review can preserve the sanity
of authors) in this age
of enforced transparency (WikiLeaks being the most
famous example).