A Conversation with Werner Kramarsky

CR: Which has changed because with so many dealers around, you shoot yourself in the foot, in a way.

WK: I still think that there are an awful lot of artists around who do not get to show in the commercial galleries and who would use places like Artists Space and The Drawing Center if that opportunity was there for that kind of work.

CR: Absolutely, absolutely, and I think those institutions ought to pay attention to that and understand that.

WK: It should be part of the mission.

CR: I think it still is to some degree. I guess the second part of my question is that I went through the resumes a little bit and I realized that a lot of the artists, at least in this group, were born in the second half of the 50s and early 60s. And looking at the work, there is almost something that feels classical in relation to that first generation of minimal, post-minimal process art, especially if you understand that within the context of the 60s it was seen as experimental. Maybe it didn’t feel as radical at the time, but historically you would look at it and say there was a real moment of radicalization there. Whereas, with this generation it feels as if there is a—I don’t want to make them into mere followers, which I don’t think any of them are—but there is a sense of classicism in the work that is interesting to see. It feels like a continuation of something and a looking back and a referencing back.

WK: To some extent that probably is more due to the fact that when I selected this group, I selected them for a particular purpose. If you look at them, they have a distinct purpose—they all demonstrate different media, different supports, different ways of using a particular medium. They are selected as, basically, teaching tools. Most of what I’ve given to the educational institutions is selected that way. So that puts a certain limit on it. But of course, you’re right. My eye and my sensibility come out of that earlier period. Maybe what my eye does is classicize that.