art-criticism

The problem of knowledge is that there are many more books on birds written by ornithologists than books on birds written by birds and books on ornithologists written by birds

I do write about men now and then, but I mostly write about women because that's the work I like best. When I became a feminist, I realized that somebody had to write all about this women's art that was out there ignored, and it was going to be me. And of course the ideas were particularly interesting to me, and the discoveries, about what women's art was and could be. I often say I'm more interested and mediocre art by women than in mediocre art by men _ which is interpreted as I only like mediocre art or women only do mediocre art _ all that shit. I don't write about mediocre art but I look at it and it does interest me for the information it gives me about women's imagery, women's psyches, women's lives, women's experience.

All artists are willing to suffer for their work. But why are so few prepared to learn to draw?

Modern paintings are like women, you'll never enjoy them if you try to understand them.

Interpretation is the revenge of the intellectual upon art.

I became an artist because I wanted to be an active participant in the conversation about art.

The artist is the only one qualified to criticize his art, because only the artist knows what he was trying to express and how satisfied he is with the attempt.