Sante Scardillo;
Me, as a critic, -vs- Me, as an artist

I find it increasingly hard to be both. Essentially, being an artist requires a constructive attitude belying everything. Being a critic, well, one must be critical, which entails the opposite. I am very opininated and I like to share my opinions. But, as a critical writer, I feel naturally stirred towards focusing on the glass being half empty, rather than the glass being half full, which I would see as an artist looking at art. I would be more concerned for the difficulties of communicating and creating, meeting them in my own work and therefore be more sympathetic with "collegues" enmeshed in the same and the results of their struggles. As a critic, one is also mandated to take in an overkill of exhibitions, which inevitably causes a jadedness which is not easily gotten rid of, and which one often does not know one has. This "reading signs" business is very demanding for one whose passions lie with making signs. The two do not go together for me, not at the same time. I will write only on things I find extremely interesting, which means, much less frequently, which was the plan originally. When one thinks "I shall write" and there's nothing positive to relay, one easily focuses on the negative, feels the pressure to express oneself if not describe something worthy. This is precisely what I want to avoid. Not because I am afraid of offending anybody, if what I posted so far is any guidance, but I regard my job as being positive and propositional. There is a need for good, reqular, prolific critics, but I am not one. Too many words, too many critiques around already, the world doesn't need mine. One exception, which seems only fair; it will always be open season on critics, it seems only fair. And as I said, topics of my interest, although I do not enjoy censoring the operate of anybody. Philosophically, that is: in pracitce I love doing it just like the next fella. That is the object of the next piece.

-Sante Scardillo

Email to: