Johann,
You state:
<Terry's question 1: the fact that someone else writes about your work
has nothing to do with the merits of your work at all, because that
usually means a curated brochure or the like that 'explains' the work to
an audience as the writer (art critic) sees it. Who, then, is the
originator of the 'work' that the 'user' has access to? If you are the
artist and you claim the work of another (the critic's text) as your own
'production' then you are a plagiarist.>
The fact that a work receives a review from an author of art criticism or inclusion in an exhibit catalog from an exhibit curator is one testament to the work's merit. Terry's initial question dealt with how the artist classified these inclusions as publications. Deciding whether this candidate's work qualifies as research at a doctoral level requires more info about the candidate, his or her work, and the program of study in question. My concern with your post is that it dismisses the whole of art criticism and every curatorial endeavor as exercises in mere explanation. I think anyone who reviews works of art or design would disagree with you. Besides, if peer review letters are part of a tenure applicant's dossier, then why would reviews written by professional critics and curators not be considered to have something very much to do with the merits of the artist's work?
Michael
--
Michael Schmidt, Director
Center for Multimedia Arts
The University of Memphis
FedEx Institute of Technology Bldg
365 Innovation Dr, Ste 335
Phone/fax: 901-678-1777
iChat: [log in to unmask]
Skype: vizthnkr
|