[Christy] Rupp and I live in the same building in lower Manhattan, just a few blocks south of City Hall, where the most reactionary mayor in New York’s recent history delivers the city over to powerful real estate developers while city services decline and our poorer citizens are further marginalized. The combination of the Reagan administration’s cuts in federal programs to aid the poor and New York’s cynically manipulated housing shortage has resulted in a reported 30,000 homeless people now living on the streets of the city. The hard and brutal conditions of these people’s lives can be imagined by observing the few of them who spend every evening in the alleyway behind our building competing with rats for the garbage left there by McDonald’s and Burger King. Mayor Koch was publicly embarrassed in the spring of 1979, when the media reported the story of a neighborhood office worker attacked by these rats as she left work. Such an event would certainly have been routine had it happened in one of the city’s ghetto districts, but in this case the Health Department was called in, and their findings were rather sensational: the vacant lot adjoining the alleyway contained thirty-two tons of garbage and was home to an estimated 4,000 rodents. But they also found something else, even more difficult to explain to the public. Pasted to the temporary wall barricading the vacant lot from the street were pictures of a huge, sinister attacking rat, reproductions of a photograph from the Health Department’s own files.
–Douglas Crimp, “The Art of Exhibition” (1984)
Benjamin H. D. Buchloh
(Rosenblatt Professor of Modern Art – Harvard University)
“Raymond Pettibon: Return to Disorder and Disfiguration”
October 92 (Spring): 37-51.
Benjamin H. D. Buchloh, . . . who teaches art history at the State University of New York at Westbury, defends the propaganda materials he has selected for this exhibition by, among other things, attacking the late Alfred H. Barr, Jr., for his alleged failure to comprehend “the radical change that [modern] artists and theoreticians introduced into the history of aesthetic theory and production in the twentieth century.” What this means, apparently, is that Alfred Barr would never have accepted Professor Buchloh’s Marxist analysis of the history of modern art, which appears to be based on Louis Althusser‘s Lenin and Philosophy. (Is this really what is taught as modern art history at SUNY Westbury? Alas, one can believe it.)
—Hilton Kramer, quoted in Douglas Crimp’s “The Art of Exhibition”
October, Vol. 30. (Autumn, 1984)
We have here yet another example of [Hilton] Kramer’s moralizing cultural conservatism disguised as progressive modernism. But we also have an interesting estimation of the discursive practice of the museum in the period of modernism and of its present transformation. Kramer’s analysis fails, however, to take into account the extent to which the museum’s claims to represent art coherently have already been opened to question by the practices of contemporary — postmodern — art.
—Douglas Crimp, “On The Museum’s Ruins”
October, Vol. 13 (Summer, 1980)