"What it Means to Write about Art" by Jarrett Earnest (David Zwirner Books)

ISBN: 9781941701898

As a writer, I try to do these little exercises by writing a description of my office or other rooms in the house. It's difficult, but once you start thinking about a room or space, that has stuff in it, it becomes a self-portrait or a statement in itself. I can be abstract in my method, but I want the reader to know what it is like to be in my office. Also, I try to focus on every object that is placed in the room, and what it represents or how space is used around its surroundings. I can imagine writing about film or music, but the idea of writing criticism or observation on 'art,' is a mystery to me. For instance, how does one put in words about a Jackson Pollack painting? I can write about the process of making such a painting, but what it means to me as a viewer of that work? How does one put words or vocabulary together describing artworks? It is with great interest that I read Jarrett Earnest's collection of interviews with art critics on their craft and talent in describing, writing, and commenting on the visual art world. "What It Means to Write about Art" is a stunning collection, that makes me think of art criticism as a form in itself. 

For me, I find art criticism or writing tedious. I can never figure out why I find something so exciting as seeing an exhibition can be a chore to read, done by an art critic. I now realize that it's not the critics' fault, but more of me going into a foreign world, writing about something that is unexplainable and mysterious. On the other hand, when I look at an article written by a professor or sometimes a curator, I tend to think it's not as well written or enjoyable if a poet wrote it. Then some poets write art criticism, and that, I find fascinating. Eight out of thirty art critics are well-known poets in this collection. All thirty, are interesting people, with strong opinions, and the vocabulary and writing skills to back up their stance about an artist and their artwork. The poets especially are good, because I suspect that they look at writing as another form of sculpture, and therefore one medium or style works with the other quite well. 

Jarrett Earnest is a fantastic interviewer, and I can't imagine a better set of questions to these specific writers, regarding their origins as a critic as well as how they see their profession in the bigger landscape of the arts. All of them I believe are into the big discussion of art aesthetics and politics, and it's a very individual path that some of these writers take in their work. For instance, for some, politics is a big part of their writing, some it's the issue of queer studies and how it mixes in the culture that they write about. Or how race and the power structure plays in the world of the arts. Others are looking at art as a stand-alone object or piece that expresses an inner-world or expression of how to see things. Earnest doesn't seem to leave anyone out, and this is a fantastic volume of interviews, that not only focuses on the writing of the arts but also what makes a writer tick. 

Not everyone in this book I find utterly fascinating due to their writing or stance. But reading all the interviews, I find myself entertained, informed, and also admire that each one in their method can describe or make commentary on the visual arts, in such a manner that is a dialog as well as a pointed expression of opinion and passion. Earnest knows how to communicate with the subject matters here, and he comes off charming, and never dwells into 'art-speak' or art-talk' language. Some of the writers here write for specific art journals (like "October") while others write for massive publications like The New Yorker, The New York Times, WSJ, and so forth. As a writer, I find their advice and thoughts profound and having them comment on the nature of art criticism; it's an exciting relationship between observer and art object. 

I recommend "What it Means to Write About Art" to anyone who is interested in writing art criticism, but even more important for anyone who cares about writing as a medium to express themselves or thoughts on another medium such as art. A great book published by David Zwirner Books, who do excellent titles on and by art writers who write criticism. - Tosh Berman

"Bresson on Bresson: Interviews 1943-1983" by Robert Bresson (New York Review of Books)

ISBN: 978-1-68137-044-6 nyrb

Once you see a film by Robert Bresson, you will never forget it.   It seems nothing is happening, but the truth is everything is happening.   The emotions are usually muted, and the actions of the models (not actors, will get to that later) are choreographed to a certain degree.  My first Bresson film was “Pickpocket, ” a story about a pickpocket artist who works his way in various train stations and public places, including buses/subways.  It’s nerve wracking watching close up of hands doing their magic, by appearing in stranger’s pockets, or in a woman’s bag or purse.  The film goes on a relaxing pace, but the intensity is severe.  It’s a strange mixture, where scenes are slowed down, to heighten the emotion of that scene.   Bresson didn’t make that many films in his long life, but each one is a remarkable work.  

“Bresson on Bresson: Interviews 1943-1983, chapter-by-chapter, cover each of his 13 films.  This is not something like the Hitchcock/Truffaut book, where each film is exposed by the second.   No, this basically a series of interviews with Bresson and his methods in working.  What’s unusual about him is that Bresson mostly used amateur actors in his productions.  He didn’t like actors, at least in his films.  A big concern for him is that cinematography (his term for the cinema) is a separate art from the theater - and he felt that the theater had too much of a presence in the cinema.  He comments that a painting (he was a painter) on a canvas is totally different from seeing a photograph of that painting - and therefore the acting profession comes from the theater - and that is not the right procedure for the cinema.   In his opinion most films are a reflection of the theater arts - and he feels that film is an art by itself.  An even greater art than theater.  It’s an interesting argument or position.   It is also what makes his films so unique to this very day.  

Bresson had a very rigid point of view with respect to art making - and the specifics of making cinema.  He preferred to use the term ‘model’ instead of actor - and he didn’t want anything theatrical coming of the model’s mouth or their gestures.  Also the same with the theory of not changing the lens on the movie camera, because in his thinking, people don’t change their glasses on a consistent basis.  So there must be a consistency of some sort.  Still, Bresson's films are overwhelming with feeling.   “Bresson on Bresson” is a classic book and anyone who even has the slightest interest in being a filmmaker or even artist - must read and learn.   An excellent companion piece to his book of writings “Notes on the Cinematograph. ”