Peter Schjeldahl on Henri Cartier-Bresson, Live, Right this moment

[martin s]

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/ask/2010/04/questions-for-schjeldahl.html

martin

 

[bmasonoh]

Thanks for posting this. Interesting discussion!

 

[martin s]

Pretentious, slow and boring, but I'm glad somebody likes it. Art critic, what a pointless job.

martin

 

[Andy Kibber]

Pretentious, slow and boring, but I'm glad somebody likes it. Art critic, what a pointless job.

martin

Tell us what you really think! 🙂

 

[anu L ogy]

Hrm I suppose now is a good a time as any to post my first post here 😀

I agree with Martin - to an extent - Im a bit disappointed. Some people asked some interesting questions, but I found him unwilling to elaborate on some, and intentionally dodging others. It reminded me of that Garry Winogrand interview at MIT where one of the students called Winogrand out for being a jerk, except no one called this guy out.

-Jim

 

[remegius]

Art critic, what a pointless job.
martin

Tut, tut, dear boy. Although I must say, it seems that every day I read something that tempts me to agree with you. You know...being intrigued, without ever quite being enlightened. But then someone comes along without an axe to grind, but with a large reserve of insight, and all of a sudden I am reminded that criticism can indeed be interesting and instructive.

Cheers...

Rem

 

[Andy Kibber]

Speaking of Schjeldahl, he wrote a column in the New Yorker this week about HCB. An interesting read. I also like the follow up questions from readers here (link). I especially like this exchange:

QUESTION FROM PAULINA PLEZIA: It’s hard to surprise modern audiences. Sometimes it feels like if every possible photo has already been taken. Would you agree with that? Maybe the digitally created collages are the only way to go.

PETER SCHJELDAHL: But not every photograph has been taken by everybody. People with great and unusual eyes, minds, and sensibilities keep coming. The technique and genre of any work of art promise nothing in terms of quality, in themselves, except as filtered through a temperament.

 

[retnull]

Schjeldahl is not "some guy". He is considered one of the most important living art critics. All other art critics are envious of his prose style: it's stunning. Even if you don't care about what he's writing about, his prose is amazing to read.

 

[Viktor Sebastian]

Schjeldahl is not "some guy". He is considered one of the most important living art critics. All other art critics are envious of his prose style: it's stunning. Even if you don't care about what he's writing about, his prose is amazing to read.

Could you please provide an example?

I just read a few and his writing style didn’t strike me as being amazing prose perhaps I just found dud articles. Or are you referring to his poems?

Edit: He is growing on me. Always so hasty to judge... tut tut.