Josh Schwebel <privatejosh@gmail.com>
To: █████████ █████ <█████████████████ >, Lauren Wetmore <████████████████████████████████ >
dear █████████ ,
I think the bridge section (where you talk about moving beyond critique) needs to be expanded - how has institutional critique in its more traditional forms come to a dead end? why? (financial incentives and funding structures have changed -- art institutions have come to resemble other capitalist institutions, "branding" themselves as critical while becoming increasingly hierarchical and authoritarian - funding structures have imposed administrative and formal demands on institutions to conform to other regulated organizations -- hence The Employee's examination of funding structures). The concept of care, which appears only in relation to my work, needs to be introduced at the beginning of the text and integrated through the first section more. How is care a continuation of an economic critique?
I hope that you are well.
As promised, I am writing with some notes on the text you sent me.
Overall, it is quite close to what I had hoped to receive and adds a welcome complement to the other essays in the publication. Lauren and I are very pleased to be able to include it.
This is an excellent first draft.
Lauren and I have refrained from correcting the English at this stage. We will do this after you respond to our notes on the text.
I have inserted specific notes into the text, which you can find here:
Here is my main comment on this draft. I think that the subject is exactly right, but the text has some structural issues. The first part (historical) and second part (my work) need to be joined together more clearly. How does Care connect to the economic critique addressed in section 1?: Where the first (historical) part addresses some of the critical impacts of bringing the economic conditions of art making into the visible artwork, this trajectory drops off. Then, there is a transition with a mention of Louise Lawler's quote about the incorporation of critique into the institutional framework to talking about finesse and care. This transition needs to be more effectively fleshed out. How does care continue the work of the critical gestures already described? I understand that you are working out how my gesture in support of the framing structure constitutes a critical gesture -- this is important and should be pursued further, but I would also like for you to talk about The Employee more in economic terms relative to the gestures of Asher.
I think the bridge section (where you talk about moving beyond critique) needs to be expanded - how has institutional critique in its more traditional forms come to a dead end? why? (financial incentives and funding structures have changed -- art institutions have come to resemble other capitalist institutions, "branding" themselves as critical while becoming increasingly hierarchical and authoritarian - funding structures have imposed administrative and formal demands on institutions to conform to other regulated organizations -- hence The Employee's examination of funding structures). The concept of care, which appears only in relation to my work, needs to be introduced at the beginning of the text and integrated through the first section more. How is care a continuation of an economic critique?
thank you again for thinking about my work so deeply,
warmly,
Josh