Yesterday, New York magazine and former Village Voice art critic Jerry Saltz joined the conversation about Charles Krafft's "provocative" art and Holocaust denial with this comment:
Here, Saltz describes that Krafft's art was always, to him, not art but artifact. (Nice Currin dig.) Lots of people have been making that claim in the last few days—that they never felt any real artistic frisson from Krafft's works in the first place. I am having a hard time thinking back to what I thought of them from the beginning, frankly. (When did I first see them? What was the context? I can't even bring that back—1999? Tacoma?) So many layers of just stuff at this point.
Join comments here.