Dr. Marek Bartelik is an art critic, historian, and poet from New York. For already over 20 years he has been a regular reviewer of Artforum, by far the most influential magazine about actual art in the world. Bartelik teaches art at Cooper Union College in New York, he has previously taught in Yale and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Currently he is a president of AICA-USA (International Association of Art Critics) and vice president of the International Association of Art Experts (AICA International). The collection of his reviews for Artforum is scheduled to be published in 2012.
Recently Bartelik visited the Donetsk Art Center “Isolation,” where he communicated with art lovers and the press.
How did your cooperation with Artforum begin?
“The beginning was quite funny. At the time I was studying art history in New York. I went to a Warsaw exhibit with my friend, wrote an article about it, and sent it to Artforum. They lost it. I sent it again and they lost it again. The third time I sent it they did receive the article, but said that they would publish it if I would work with them on a regular basis. I did not call them until the day after. Twenty years have passed. I started my activity as a critic from Europe, and then I have written for five years from New York. I did not really like it, as I was too close to subjects of my reviews. Therefore I decided to write only while traveling. In this case you feel freer. I think in 20 years I have earned certain name and may offer certain topics, which they accept as a rule.”
What are your guiding principles at work?
“Subjective approach is extremely important. Overall, I think that for the activity of an art critic three factors are of major importance: nomadic art, luck, and logic of sense. Nomadic art is not hierarchic, it has a short-time rather than long-time prospect. It is tactile, not visual: you can touch it. I like it more to feel things (maybe even symbolically) than observe them: tactile rather than visual experience. This brings us really close to the essence of art.”
Your definition of nomadic art reminds me of postmodernism: the same anti-hierarchism, horizontal structure etc.
“I am not sure that I know what postmodernism is. I am not sure that anybody does. I don’t think these two categories are close for a very simple reason: postmodern refuses from the question of quality whereas nomadic art is really interested in some aesthetic experience, ideas of art, mastery, about which postmodernism does not care. First and foremost, I am looking for masterful artists, crafters, I take no interest in the artists who do things only because they have imagination, to invent something and do without quality. This is how I distinguish between these two notions. Nomadic art is seeking the lost universe, whereas postmodernism is acceptation of the fact the universe has been lost.”
But do you have any preferences in style or national schools?
“I have written for Artforum about exhibits in 25 countries on five continents. This is rather unusual, because my fellows more often focus on one direction. Besides, my mission in Artforum is to write about rising stars or the forgotten ones.”
You pay much attention to East European artists. What can you say about them?
“In their works they are trying to estrange from Russia and show the uniqueness of their own culture. In the 1990s, when you came from the cities like Donetsk or Kyiv, you had to call yourselves Russians, because otherwise Americans did not understand; if you said you were a Ukrainian or Lithuanian, it would sound too esoteric. Incidentally, the following thing happened to Oleksandr Arkhypenko: he called himself a Russian, because that was a distinguishing peculiarity. Only now they say that he was a Ukrainian. His last wife is still alive, and we agreed with her that we would say he was Ukraine-born.”
Which contemporary Ukrainian artists do you know?
“Borys Mykhailov [a Kharkiv photo artist, currently residing in Germany. – Author] is working here with the foundation. I remember his first exhibits in New York. Of course, he is a celebrity now. But he was scarcely known in the 1990s, and I find his works really wonderful. Apart from certain nostalgia as well as certain brutality and confrontation, in his works he also studies the poetry of that time.
“Also Illia Kabakov [a Dnipropetrovsk-born artist-conceptualist of world renown. – Author]: you must know his name very well. I like his works very much, we are long-time friends. I have followed his career in the West.”
In your opinion, why did he become so successful in the West?
“They expected Kabakov to reveal the Soviet living conditions or be willing to do so, but in every new installation by him he in fact makes things that are beyond time, based on his past experience. Now they say he is deeply rooted in Soviet material, but I repeat that namely timelessness is what enchants in his works.”
How would you describe your critical method?
“Whatever I do is rather a certain way. It has no concrete guidelines, categories, or strict logic. Staying within this stream of feelings and associations, I make emphasis on specific events, meetings with people and their works. There are no ready answers. I don’t want to say that I know more than you do, I just have been lucky to visit somewhat more places. This is like the experience of discovering the world. The world is so big that the best we can have is a concrete encounter with certain events. I come to New York, see something, and ask you what this is. This is much more important for me than simple classification. I am guided by my intuition more than rational intellect, which is typical for art critic. I visit many exhibits and try to find the least obvious ways of cognizing what I see.”
How can one define a limit between the art containing an idea and destiny of an artist and an object of reality which is no art?
“It is interesting that you have asked me this particular question, because my new book which is being prepared for print, is namely about the connection between life and art. My life is very rich because there is no strict division between these two notions. Is somebody or something simply a person or object of art is in fact not two in one, there is no contradiction, no division. Nietzsche said aptly about this: ‘Art prevents us from being destroyed by the truth.’ This is my credo: art is a kind of parallel truth.”
Could you please tell a few words about your teaching activity?
“I teach art history to people who want to become artists or already view themselves as artists. It is interesting that I learn from them, too. One of the reasons why I allow them to speak and express themselves is to find out what they think. For example, I was speaking with my students in New York about painting. They suddenly discovered what I have never thought about: younger generation get experience in space in an absolutely different way, for the look of a young person on a skateboard, standing on a changing surface, is a much more different form than that of the person standing on solid ground. So the way they paint reflects the way they perceive the space from their stand. Without this specification I could not have talked with them about what they are doing. So I have my experience, which I am trying to share with others. On the other hand, I want to know what young people think, and I am trying to learn from them. This is the way I am trying to rationalize things. It is interesting to write about young people, about their perception of reality: I have been writing much about this lately.”
What can you advise to young Ukrainian artists?
“You should be adventurous; you should speak with the highest number of people possible. When you are 20-30, it is interesting to discover other people. If you coexist with the environment in interactive way, you create your own environment. Instead of going to people to make them discover you, you create your own context and show it to the world. Therefore it is so good that you have created in Donetsk your own community instead of waiting for curators to come here. I will reveal a secret to you, how to manage the system. One of the greatest fears of a system – whether it is museums or art magazines – they are all afraid of missing something important. So instead of integrating in the existing structure, you should simply do your work, and when you do it well, the fear of institutions to miss something important will come to you in a positive way. I always rely on such kind of relations. Anyway, you are the source of the power. Make everything in such a way that the institutions feared to lose you, not you feared to lose the institutions’ favor.”
Have you ever thought of organizing exhibits or even become an artist?
“I started to study art when I was in Paris. Afterwards I worked as an ordinary engineer. Then I defended my thesis on art history in New York. I have never wanted to create my own works; however, I have been a curator at many exhibits. My friends joked that I started as an engineer and earned good money, and then became an art critic for lesser money. Finally, I began to write verse. In a word, I constantly seek to earn less and less, but I will do what I want.”
What do you think about Ukraine’s prospects on the international art stage?
“I am not sure that I know Ukrainian art well enough. When I was in Kyiv, I was brought to various studios, I was introduced to the groups Soska and REP. I can state one thing for sure: when I came to other places, everything was well-thought there: they already knew how to manipulate the system. Here people are pure enough to make special things. This is a real innocence which is very attractive, hence the feeling of freshness in the works I saw. The fact that you don’t have a commercial art stage is really good. At some point of time you will have it, but it is not of vital importance in this period of your life, you should appreciate the current stage. I understand, it is very important to join the world, but the world is not something special, everything is in a single context. Three years ago I visited the celebration of the anniversary of the PinchukArtCentre. It was really interesting to see such a spectacular collection in your country. I have an only question: do you need this collection? What is going on with your world outlook when Pinchuk collects Hirst, Gursky, Koons, and Murakami? On the one hand, it looked impressive; on the other hand, it did not look as something necessary. It seems to me that Ukrainian artists are more apt in humor and sarcasm than the foreign celebrities like Hirst, Gursky, and Koons. One more thing: in the West people rely in their opinions on the crutches of law, but you, living in a country not governed by the rule of law, have a more intuitive feeling of justice and truth, and I like it very much.”
