In 1979 when Hal Fischer wrote the ArtWeek and AfterImage reviews I considered writing a publishable response. At the time, however, I decided to let the exhibition and catalogue speak for themselves. And as a result numerous examples of rebuttal can be found throughout the writings of other reviewers and in the correspondence produced by the project. As I now reread Fischer's reviews, almost thirty years after their publication, I still get upset and dismayed with the tenor of his criticism and with the blatant misrepresentations of fact. Overall, however, I remain satisfied and vindicated with the rebuttals provided by others, but I now need to add a few comments of my own. First, and I blame myself for this one, Fischer never actually saw the exhibition as it was supposed to be seen. He even refers to that fact in the AfterImage review were he states that he arrived in Santa Barbara "the weekend before Attitudes was to open". In my naive eagerness for a review, I foolishly allowed him to view what I would characterize now as a "dress rehearsal". He never returned to view the complete installation or experience the show as I expected. Although it may not have altered any of his opinions, I now realize it was a big mistake to permit that snick preview. It tainted his entire perspective of what I was doing. My second comment refers to his assumption that the Attitudes project was "heavily funded". I assume he drew that conclusion based on what he might have needed had he traveled 20,000 miles while doing research. Unfortunately, he was mistaken. The project was far from heavily funded. A majority of my mileage was logged in my old VW van while sleeping on sofas or in guest rooms of various photographers and dining at McDonalds much more than was healthy. I never boarded a plane or slept in hotels or ate in fancy restaurants. Funding was barely adequate for all aspects of the project and the museum expected me to keep within my budget and actually provide a modest profit by selling catalogues. And, as it worked out, about $2,000 was "earned" and then used to purchase photographs from the participating artists for the collection. And, lastly, I want to say something about the basic difference I have with Fischer's approach to how art can be experienced and how knowledge obtained. The formulation of an exhibition, as with any creative media, can be interpreted in two entirely different ways; either as a lucid and precise act of conscious intelligence, or as a pre-intellectual intuitive mode of encounter. Our journals, books and exhibitions are traditionally used for the communication and discussion of the rational, the logical, the public, the impersonal, the repeatable, the objective, the unemotional. They thereby assume the very forms of presentation which are antithetical to the creative act. To continue using the traditional canons of the impersonal, as our primary approach of presenting an exhibition is to remain insensitive to much that is of value in art. Attitudes was presented in a rhapsodic, poetic and free association style because some forms of truth or meaning are best discovered in such a manner. I am sorry that Fischer seemed to miss that opportunity. Fred R.
Parker |