We worked hard on this show; gave everything and the last bit at the opening on October 4, 5, and 6; and then fell into a coma to wake up delighted about the amazing reviews. Pittsburgh had trembled at the thought of being bashed by New York, but New York discussed it (what bigger compliment is there?), liked it, and acknowledged some touchdowns. Roberta Smith of the New York Times: “This lean, seemingly modest, thought-out exhibition takes the big global survey of contemporary art off steroids…”; Peter Schjeldahl of The New Yorker: “The strikingly thoughtful new edition of the venerable Carnegie International…”; Andrew Russeth of the New York Observer: “The more time I spent [with the exhibition] the more I envied the people of the Steel City, who get to have it at their doorstep for the next five months.”
New York not being everything, there were (and still are coming, we’ll keep you posted) other reviews with great insights. Kerr Houston’s critique was one them for Baltimore’s Bmoreart; another one was Nessia Pope’s “A Seriously Playful Carnegie International Brings Welcome Attention to New Artistic Visions” for Artspace; a third was by Bryne McLaughlin in Canadian Art, and (not) finally, a more visual one was by Contemporary Art Daily.
Other journals, magazines, and blogs focused on individual artists like Taryn Simon (Telegraph), Zanele Muholi (Huffington Post), Mladen Stilinović (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review), Zoe Strauss in Artforum and in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Transformazium’s Art Lending Collection, Ei Arakawa/Henning Bohl’s interview, John Kane (prominently shown in the Carnegie Museum of Art’s collection reinstallation), Henry Taylor, and Dinh Q. Lê.
And the Lawrenceville Apartment Talks.
And there were interviews and articles where we raised our voices (or they were raised for us)—a profile on Tina Kukielski, Dan Byers, and Daniel Baumann; Tom Eccles in conversation with the three co-curators for the British ArtReview; Jay Sanders in discussion with Daniel Baumann in Spike Art Quarterly.