Viewport width =
March 3, 2014 | by  | in Arts Visual Arts |
Share on FacebookShare on Google+Pin on PinterestTweet about this on Twitter

Interview with Megan Dunn

Talking about art is difficult. In preparation for my piece this week, I emailed art critic Megan Dunn to find out how she tackles the subject.

When reviewing, or trying to unpack, a work of art, where do you start? Do you read about the work beforehand, consider respective artist statements, go in blind?

I start by describing what I have seen or experienced. This isn’t easy. Description is a joy and a pain in the arse. A writer has the responsibility to be concrete, rather than abstract, even when writing about abstraction. What kind of abstraction: Malevich’s white on white? Rothko’s fluffy ducks, his mauve haze, his fuzz balls? Or Mondrian’s primary-coloured checkerboards and parallel lines?  I once bought some Mondrian placemats from a garage sale in Rotorua. In the midst of description I always reveal myself…a metaphor or simile about the art unravels and I chase after it, claws in or out.

I regard each artist’s statement with suspicion like a rusty sheriff’s badge.

What’s the most art has made you feel? Have you ever cried at an artwork? Laughed out loud?

I have cried in the company of artworks. Art increases my capacity for wonder, or perhaps it simply matches the human capacity for wonder. From the overfriendly face of the Mona Lisa to Tretchikoff’s beguiling Miss Wong. I’m not afraid to get it wrong. I covet stuff I will never own: Christo’s gift-wrapped islands; Jeff Koons totally wacko photos of himself bonking porn star, Cicciolina; Hannah Wilke’s chewed-up pieces of chewing gum. Art is as abundant and corrupt as the world. I often laugh.

Do you feel that people, when they talk about art, are guarded for fear of interpreting it wrong?

Fuck, nose.

An old acquaintance attended the opening of The Chapman Brothers Retrospective at Saatchi Gallery in London. I adored this friend for his glamorous life and celebrity stories. On this occasion, he was in the company of Kylie Minogue. Kylie and my friend strolled the perimeter of Zygotic Acceleration: a sculpture of a cluster of nude children conjoined in the manner of Siamese twins. The pre-pubescent mannequins are all smooth and sexless apart from their faces. Some sport penises instead of noses.

My friend leaned over and said to Kylie; “What do you think. Is it art? Fuck, knows?”

Kylie remained earnest and open-minded. “I think it is art…”

They stood in front of a mannequin that had a Pinocchio-size hard-on.

My friend tried again. “Fuck, nose.”

Who do you think you write reviews for? Do you feel you’re supposed to make a conscious effort to broaden the appeal of art – or do you feel that doing so is passé, that art critics write for a niche audience?

Each publication has its own audience. The piece must be pitched to that audience while remaining sincere to the reviewer’s experience of the art. So sometimes writing with a broader appeal is a factor. This doesn’t necessarily equate to dumbing the work down, it might mean dispensing with insider jokes, trade secrets and relying on assumptions of shared knowledge; a common history.

Readers often appreciate facts and information. I write to enrich their experience of the work and my own.  I write to entertain. (I start with myself.) I write to meet deadlines. Criticism is a form of opinion; I aim for informed opinion. Each reader has a mind of their own.

When speaking to someone who also shares an interest in art, do you find yourself talking in a particular dialect? Do you make noticeable adjustments in the language you use when talking to different people?

Yes and no. When I was a teenager, a picture of Van Gogh’s sunflowers hung above the kitchen table at home. My uncle, a shearer, arrived one day from out of town. He challenged me about the sunflowers. “Why is it a good picture?” I looked at the bulbous heads through his eyes. He was right. Van Gogh had not managed a photo-realist rendering of the image. I struggled to explain why Van Gogh’s sunflowers were worthy of attention that day. I’m still struggling, but I believe in Van Gogh’s turbulent sunflowers and the power of art’s tawdry, turpentine-drenched past.

Megan Dunn has published art reviews in a number of online and print forums, including New Zealand Listener, Art News, and visual-arts website EyeContact.

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Pin on PinterestTweet about this on Twitter

About the Author ()

Comments are closed.

Recent posts

  1. “Representation”: Victoria Rhodes-Carlin Is Running For Greater Wellington Regional Council
  2. The Community Without A Home: Queer Homeslessness in Aotearoa
  3. Pasifika Queer in Review
  4. The National Queer in Review
  5. Māori Queer in Review
  6. LGBTQI Project Report Update
  7. International Queer in Review
  8. Rostra’s Hot Takes – Queerlient
  9. Issue 14 – Queerlient
  10. Interview with Claudia Jardine

Editor's Pick

Burnt Honey

: First tutorial of the year. When I open the door, I underestimate my strength, thinking it to be all used up in my journey here. It swings open violently and I trip into the room where awkward gazes greet me. Frozen, my legs are lead and I’m stuck on display for too long. My ov

Do you know how to read? Sign up to our Newsletter!

* indicates required