Viewing page 55 of 71
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
25 time it got back to Howard, it bore no resemblance to the original. And he put up with it because he was a journalist. But it really was too bad, because Howard was very, very knowledgeable, [[carrot]] about the new and before and of we journ.ism was [[/end carrot]] and it was maddening [[strikethrough]] to think that he was one of the few people you could to to about this work, and that he [[carrot]] couldn't get his orig. wk accepted; the editors always diddled around w them [[/end carrot]] didn't care about getting that accurate information out. I have an idea for an art magazine...I think that the [[/end strikethrough]] art magazines now and criticism [[carrot]] of very recent; immediate art are becoming [[/end carrot]] because more and more irrelevant as the art becomes more experiential [[strikethrough]] and more the art [[/end strikethrough]] [[carrot]] and [[/end carrot]] pertains directly to the person who's experiencing it; there's less and less need for interpretation. [[between lines]]the art's already transl. into words anyway. [[/between lines]] There will always be a valid art historical interest in relating what was past to what is present, [[strikethrough]] but certainly most [[/strikethrough]] very few people [[between lines]] are interested in that; they want to be told how do I k at or exp. art and they want value judging [[/end between lines]] [[strikethrough]] don't want that, when you write articles about it. My parents and a lot of people are always saying, "why can't you write those lovely informative things you used to write, where you told us what to think about the work." Well, that's not my idea of what should be done. I mean [[/strikethrough]] You start out there if you're writing; but I don't think a critic can with any conscience stayin that position. Now it seems [[strikethrough]] like a matter of [[/strikethrough]] get[[strikthrough]]ting [[/strikethrough]] the information about the art out accurately, and probably the best way of doing that is through the artist, [[strikethrough]] which is why this anthology should be important because it has a lot of artists' sentiments in it. And every now and again you run across somebody like [[/strikethrough]] Baxter [[strikethrough]] for whom [[/strikethrough]] the information is is the art, [[strikethrough]] and then you can't even get that into an anthology. But [[/strikethrough]] I'd like to do a magazine, and it looks as though it might be done now, [[strikethrough]] and it won't be done in America, because America isn't interested in doing this kind of think. It'll [[/strikethrough]] probably [[strikethrough]] be done [[/strikethrough]] in Canada. [[strikethrough]] But [[/strikethrough]] [[left margin]] immedian criticism is the most exciting and challenging but also most frustrating. Contexts change so fast. By the time we save this, espabla (??), is pub, it is all q done -- GLPSWD [[bracketed left margin]] that's where reviewing is at [[second bracketed left margin]] the extent to which the artist can be believed is relat. to his wk. At least its primary, 1st level info. [[/end left margin]]
