“[…] From those who theorize to those who tell stories, from those who list items to those who describe personal memories, from dictionary definitions to records of informal conversations, from artists’ statements to critics’ observations, from the walk through the gallery to an alternative space from which to imagine a work, my interest is the multiplicity of voice and the variations of standpoint. Such an approach can draw upon the remembered, the dreamed and the imagined, as well as observations of the ‘real’, and challenges criticism as a form of knowledge with a singular and static point of view located in the here and now.
What happens when discussions concerning site-specificity extend to involve art criticism, and the spatial qualities of the writing become as important in conveying meaning as the context of the criticism? My suggestion is that this kind of criticism has concerns that go beyond writing ‘about’ art. In operating as a mode of practice in its own right, this critical writing questions the terms of reference that relate the critic to the artwork positioned ‘under’ critique. This writing is spatial, it is an active writing that constructs as well as traces the sites between critic and writer, artist and artwork, viewer and reader. […]”