US artist NATHAN PETER was interviewed by Open Dialogues writer Clare Carswell, in Choriner Strasse, Berlin on Wednesday 11th June 2008. He was in the process of de-installing the large wall-based work ‘Eminent Domain’ that he had made for the New Life Berlin Festival. www.wooloo.org/eminentdomain

Clare Carswell (CC) : What is your view of critical writing in relation to your artistic practice ?

Nathan Peter (NP) : I want critical writing to be a true assessment of my work. If it only goes so far, and is mere description, that is not of interest to me. The descriptive tells people what is going on as opposed to offering a more theoretical text such as those in Art Forum. When I read critique I look for insights beyond the obvious and descriptive and surface interpretation. I hear a lot of artists say that they don’t read reviews and maybe the artist is not part of the audience that the writer has in mind. But there is a curiosity to read what is written about you – like going to a fortune teller – did they pick up on things?

CC : You received a great deal of attention in the first week of the New Life Berlin festival from the Open Dialogues writers. A total of three exclusive reviews of Eminent Domain, as well as extensive mentions of it in three others have appeared on the Open Dialogues blog. Have you read them?

NP : The response from the Open Dialogues writers has been impressive and I’ve never experienced that amount of attention to my work in such a short time. I have had good response from critics before, but it is often verbal and spread over a longer period, say of six weeks of exhibition or so.

NP: It is rare, too, to get the opportunity to talk with a writer and influence the text that is to be written about you. I did meet several of the Open Dialogues writers at the opening party and in the days after it and I have read through their reviews. Some are a general summation of the opening of the New Life Berlin festival and descriptions of the visuals in Eminent Domain, these are of less interest to me.
With the Open Dialogues writing the format being used is the blog. I wonder if reading critical writing on a blog is different to reading concrete text in a magazine ? I think that the informality of it does affect the style of the writing. I have a feeling too that the writers picked up the press release by Carson Chan that was available that night with my work, which was contextualising my work, and used this as a legitimised departure point for their writing. I wonder now if I should have put that text next to my work at all. The battle was how formal to make it. I wonder if that text hadn’t been there if the other writing would have been more of a discovery for me. Carson Chan has a lot of knowledge about my work, he knows the history of my ideas and of my time here in Berlin, so he has a more informed angle on my work.

CC : Does this give Chan’s writing more weight and resonance for you ?

NP : Yes, in some ways it does. Carson and I have spent a lot of time talking and this shows in his writing, whereas the Open Dialogues writing on the blog shows the difference between those I’ve spent time with and those I haven’t.

CC : Which of the Open Dialogue pieces are you are referring to ?

NP : The piece by Heiko Schmid is very good, he is living here in Berlin and it shows. I am also interested in the piece by Eliza Tan and how she took a personal approach to my work and to Berlin. She wrote about her initial response to my work and then how as she experienced Berlin, that she picked up on imagery in the city and this helped her interpret my work. So it was the experience of it she wrote about rather than relying on a more formal framework. Others fell short of going beyond description and of offering something insightful and critical. I am beyond having my feelings hurt, I am used to receiving criticism and welcome it. Heiko’s piece worked because he brought in his familiar relationship to Berlin and Eliza her personal experience of it too. So criticism doesn’t have to take a third party objective stance. Some of the writing was very bland. Equally, Carali McCall said of Eminent Domain, that it is like ‘a painters attempt at installation’ which was a negative but an interesting one. If my installation is seen as a failure it at least reflects the challenge to the painter in architecture that has existed since cave painting and through to ceiling painting. I am curious about this description as a painter and would like to know more of what she meant by that.

CC : Would you contact the writer to ask her ?

NP : Probably not. To have a dialogue the artist doesn’t always need to be an active participant. But there needs to be a theoretical to and fro. A little criticism is no bad thing. We have all been through art school so are used to legitimising our work.

CC : What art journals do you read ?

NP : I read Texte Zur Kunst. It’s a monthly written in German but three quarters of it is in English. The last issue decided to focus on critical writing. I used to read Tate Magazine and Modern Painters. Tate is now more of a fashion magazine. I like collections of writing such as the conversations of Hans Ulrich Olbrist. It is fascinating how he creates dialogue, is so familiar with the artist and their practice and asks really insightful questions.

CC : How can critical writing best reflect your work back to you ?

NP : There is a real opportunity for a writer to gain some intimacy with my work. They have to bring something different to the writing and to the work. For example you can take historical art criticism and put it in the forefront, take the perspective of a distanced glance and ask how it is contextualised in contemporary discourse. The art critics role is not to give a flattering description of the work. It is of course fantastic to read a flattering review but that is what catalogues and public relations are for.

CC : What is it that you want writing on your work to tell you ?

NP : I want to be told something I didn’t know. Both as a viewer of my work but mainly as artist.

CC : Does that process go to substantiate your potential role as a more objective viewer of your work ?

NP : Yes definitely. As an artist I am so wrapped up in the process that it feels impossible to step back and question. The best critic of my work is my wife, if that isn’t too obvious!

CC : Do you visit exhibitions ?

NP : I don’t feel I have to make the effort any more to see everything that is going on. I invest in my own studio practice. So I don’t go to all the art shows and biennales. To see my work in relation to a grander scheme though can be beneficial. For example when I came across Gordon Matta Clark’s work I hadn’t known of him before despite my formal art education. He is now a big influence for me.

CC : Are there other artists who influence you ?

NP : Sigmar Polke, Cy Twombly. I love 60s and 70s Polke but also recently, in 2007, I saw and loved his abstract paintings.

CC : Do you know that a retrospective of Cy Twombly opens this month at Tate Modern?

NP : That will be worth making a trip for !

...................................................OFF THE RECORD........................................

At this point I have stopped documenting our conversation as Nathan and I began to talk more about his approach to painting and how this translated into his installed work Eminent Domain at Choriner Strasse. He spoke with such animation and passion about his painting and his studio practice, and the reasons why the outcome for New Life Berlin was not more painterly, that I realised that in order to make better sense of Eminent Domain it was essential that I saw his paintings. We arranged there and then for me to go visit him the next morning in his studio in Kreuzberg. That conversation is the basis for a longer profile piece that I am writing on Nathan Peter and his work for later publication. (Clare Carswell)

Please only reproduce this text with permission from opendialogues@gmail.com and the author.