An open note to Lili, On the subject of this Donelle Woolford business-yesterday I posted With regard to the work in question I have a difficult time defending its motives & intentions-especially after reading the article, but I continue to defend the curators decision to include the piece and thus spark this very intense dialogue. Today I want to clarify my position: what I can comprehend about the Biennial curators decision to include this controversial work is the position shes in-not specifically to support this work. I dont see anything I do as aver being considered for the Whitney Biennial I can see how a contemporary curator would feel pressures to keep the show edgy, hence opening the door for inclusion of a body of work that in social & cultural terms cannot be justified. In other words-I can see the (temptation)necessity to show such a work because of its intrinsic shock value, because thats often the tone of such presentations of arts postmodern perspective-it likely seemed fresh at least as a thought and by its nature including Joe Scanlans work guarantees lots of buzz and gallery shows do need buzz-dont they? Doug.
Posted on: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 05:23:24 +0000