I felt that the review was evenhanded and not excessively harsh, if a little bit muddy. Ramberg is an artist and illustrator, and not by training a critic. We thought it was valuable to represent a different perspective. However, these comments will have us forewarning any member of the unwashed masses who dares to comment on a show in the future.

Had I felt that the show was worthy of lambasting, I might have written the review myself. However, Ramberg’s critique, instead of focusing on the merits of the individual works, focuses on the disappointment he felt upon entering a show whose titular ambitions were not fulfilled by the work at hand.

To assail his fitness to comment, his intelligence, and even his political correctness seems to be almost laughably desperate and needlessly defensive.

Your points about science as a natural part of the art making process, which goes so far as to cast aspersions on Jake Ramberg’s own work and the work of countless other digital artists, is preposterous. I could as easily say that because my response to these comments is typed on a computer and posted to a website, they are somehow “about” the internet. There is a distinction between form and content here, and it’s highly disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

We certainly want to support vigorous debate, but ad hominems of this kind are annoying and actually undermine my own support of the gallery. It seems there is a healthy community of supporters ready to attack anyone who critiques the work.

Like many people you only saw the “spectacle” but not the people behind the “spectacle”. Hermaphrodites aren’t freaks they’re people. The intersex subject holding a caricature of a Nazi on a leash is empowering. By focusing on the dog or the malformed arm your missing the whole point. It’s not meant to shock, its intent is quite the opposite. The paintings show strength gained through adversity and the inherent beauty in the human condition of the sitters. Lose the prejudice and you will see individuals who have survived great adversity. Their eyes and expressions betray the freak aspect you seem so focused on. Accept the difference, find some empathy, realize that being different isn’t a bad thing.

BTW the dogs head is in fact based on a wartime caricature of Herman Goering. The Iron cross around his neck was a dead give away.

Nothing is more conservative than choosing to focus on the title of an exhibit and using that as a basis for criticism. I think you worked too long and hard at finding an angle with which to slam, what I would consider to be, the best exhibit in Minneapolis at the moment and certainly the best of Art a Whirl.

I think the review displays a limited knowledge of art and science and their relationship in general. Art is in fact a science (materials, compositions, psychologies etc). The review mentions masonry a number of times but fails to mention the role science has in masonry, from math to astrology and astronomy to the study of complex civilizations. The review also mentions myths and religion. The history of science is completely embedded with that of religion and myth, even today. Consider, for instance, creationism and evolution. All in all, I think this review either really missed the boat or was just hell-bent on finding something about the show to slam.

My personal opinion is that both artists complemented each other fabulously and that the title of the exhibit challenges the viewer to do exactly the opposite of what this reviewer would have you believe: to look deeper than the surface of the work and the words used in the title.

** Note: Quodlibetica reserves the right to edit and/or reject comments. This comment has been lightly edited before being approved.**

isn’t it fair enough to relate hains and bradford whether formally or conceptually? they have a lot in common no? i would be surprised if bradford is unaware of hains. also, it is a pretty strong read to act like this was some kind of forced formal cohabitation, they are two galleries away from each other. as are the hodges and eliasson. again, there i could ask, “well don’t they have an interesting relation?”. they are both circular mirrored objects. one breathes and deliberately causes the body to change shape as you watch it, the other fractures the body and perspective, but both relate to the body’s relationship to itself and comment on subjectivity to a degree. can olafur only be placed in relation to jeppe hein or some other contemporary, and hodges to gonzalez torres or roni horn? i mean it’s a collection show…some room for maneuver every ten years or so no?

there are problems with this show am sure, but also many standout conversations and moments. cornell and hujar especially good and unexpected. the buren and cadere have infinitely more in common than the fact that they are both striped, each speaks to a profound questioning of the status of the art object in relation to place and context. buren took his art out of the gallery, inverting the readymade justification of duchamp, and cadere placed these objects in the gallery without the sanction of the given institution, a subversion of the very energy that made the readymade a seemingly valid artistic construct. just how does a curator place a cadere to look “univited” as you would like? isn’t that kind of gimmicky? given that it is now very much invited? didn’t cadere place his works against the wall ‘as if’ they were invited? what would an invited work that was once uninvited, (but at the time meant to be thought of as invited) look like if it was made to look uninvited? that would be a good challenge to figure out. (it probably should have a label though, i agree there).

am disappointed you did not talk about the kudo, the fischli and weiss, the schwarzkogler, the oldenburg or any of the other myriad of works that to me had a wonderful ability to create conversations. i guess i see where you are coming from in some ways, you clearly wanted a ‘historical’ show, but that can be a fetishized concept and often leads to the embalming of art works within the narrowest of art historical trajectories rather than affording them the right to exist in the firmament of now (if only for three years).

i enjoyed your review because of its clear engagement and commitment to the topic, but don’t agree with your overall position as it was not my experience. thankfully no giant didactics like at the mia show telling me what to think. if i want to know more about a piece of art i like: Google.

j