Submitted by Ricardo Fernández, Nov 22, 2006 15:50

Of course there are multiple ways of looking at art, and multiple ways of presenting it. And, of course, some are better than others--at least, better than others for a specific end, such as looking at the works as aesthetic objects rather than sociological expressions of a particular narrative (cultural, political, etc.).

The notion that an art-historical perspective is antithetical to the enjoyment of art by anyone other than "white art snobs" is what is in question. The definition by certain political elites of entire groups of people as being outside the historical currents that produced self-conscious art creation, collecting and museums, is what seems exclusionary to me.

That a work can only "engage" if it is a direct expression or reflection of a viewer's experience seems more objectionable to me than the proposition that a work may require some preparation and effort by the viewer, a willingness to be receptive. This idea is what seems self-absorbed and solipsistic.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.