The post’s “jocular” title seems to be a kind of yellow paper strategy at harvesting attention. With the muscular google presence of this blog though, it casts a rather negative light not so much on Obrist, as the post’s author, Karen Archey. It’s obvious she has a tenuous relationship with her subject (if any correspondence has transpired between them at all), and is fairly unfamiliar with his work or operational mode.

The post’s “jocular” title seems to be a kind of yellow paper strategy at harvesting attention. With the muscular google presence of this blog though, it casts a rather negative light not so much on Obrist, as the post’s author, Karen Archey. It’s obvious she has a tenuous relationship with her subject (if any correspondence has transpired between them at all), and is fairly unfamiliar with his work or operational mode.

LTan –

Apparently it went unnoticed that the post focuses solely on the DISCUSSION about the book, not the book itself. Like I stated in a previous comment, I look forward to reading the book. This does not disqualify me from writing about the discussion as an audience member as it seems to be suggested.

Does anyone go to lectures to be unsatisfied and bored? I’m confused by the comment that Obrist is an “over-commited curator who “rushed through much of the discussion” and the comment “I may not have found the discussion very helpful as a curator…(but there’s really no reason…to title this post the way you did.”)

My labeling him an alien is just as much condemning as it is laudatory and jocular. See the last sentence of the post, “Although he’s undeniably a gifted historian and curator, Hans Ulrich Obrist would probably benefit from climbing down his ivory tower and getting his hands a little dirty.” Obrist is hyper-educated in an insular field, actively alienating public audiences. He noted his curatorial practice exists in the public sphere: wouldn’t it be advantageous for him to hold discussions accessible to the public, let alone art world professionals? I even spoke to a curator that worked with Walter Hopps who had a difficult time keeping up with Obrist. This isn’t to say he’s “stupid,” far from it. He simply needs to consider his audience more thoroughly.

I bring up his accent because I had difficulty with it and numerous parties mentioned it was a problem for them as well. Also, obviously writing a thesis in curatorial studies suggests that I have a greater knowledge of curatorial history than the average bear. I focused on the history of the documenta.

LTan –

Apparently it went unnoticed that the post focuses solely on the DISCUSSION about the book, not the book itself. Like I stated in a previous comment, I look forward to reading the book. This does not disqualify me from writing about the discussion as an audience member as it seems to be suggested.

Does anyone go to lectures to be unsatisfied and bored? I’m confused by the comment that Obrist is an “over-commited curator who “rushed through much of the discussion” and the comment “I may not have found the discussion very helpful as a curator…(but there’s really no reason…to title this post the way you did.”)

My labeling him an alien is just as much condemning as it is laudatory and jocular. See the last sentence of the post, “Although he’s undeniably a gifted historian and curator, Hans Ulrich Obrist would probably benefit from climbing down his ivory tower and getting his hands a little dirty.” Obrist is hyper-educated in an insular field, actively alienating public audiences. He noted his curatorial practice exists in the public sphere: wouldn’t it be advantageous for him to hold discussions accessible to the public, let alone art world professionals? I even spoke to a curator that worked with Walter Hopps who had a difficult time keeping up with Obrist. This isn’t to say he’s “stupid,” far from it. He simply needs to consider his audience more thoroughly.

I bring up his accent because I had difficulty with it and numerous parties mentioned it was a problem for them as well. Also, obviously writing a thesis in curatorial studies suggests that I have a greater knowledge of curatorial history than the average bear. I focused on the history of the documenta.