What?

“Katz: Well, we edited in terms of length, not to remove content. We felt the imperative to represent David Wojnarowicz’s work as he designed it. We included every scene that’s in the video, we just truncated the length.”

Why is this acceptable? What gives you the right to determine that a short version of the film–what, one bit of every shot, in order?–is an accurate representation of how it was “designed?” Yes, I know the estate OK’d it, but that doesn’t make it right. Aside from the controversy about its removal, the placement and use of video in this exhibition was abysmal. The touch-screen kiosk holding the Wojnarowicz and Bidgood pieces looked like an information center, not a means of displaying art. Both video monitors were easy to miss and looked tacked-on, to put it mildly. I was not at all surprised to learn of their “inadvertent” omission from the catalog. That the curators did not accord video respect equivalent to the photographs and paintings is evident by the way in which it was displayed. Ironic that these curators are being lionized for something pertaining to the one part of this excellent show that failed completely.
HC NYT / TM.US (via support hide/seek face book)
- bill 12-10-2010 3:24 pm


return to: /artifax


"...ageforward/52974/?/ Content-Length: 0 Connection: close Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 ..."

from page: http://www.digitalmediatree.com/pageforward/52974
first followed here: 6-16-2022 12:09 pm
number of times: 1