As if on cue:

Hi Cinque,
I read your comments about my work in the Altoids Collection show at ArtHouse. I am glad to see that you took the time to write about my work, and I would accept your criticism if I didn't feel that you were way off in your judgements. First of all, I am not concerned with recreating mundane objects. I didn't make the carved wood exercise bike(Conrad Bakker did), and my skateboard with floppy discs is not about transforming the mundane through a paradoxically high level of craft. You mentioned Duane Hanson's sculpture, and in reference to him, your comments seem appropriate. I don't think that the craft of Warhol's Brillo boxes is executed at a particularly high level, but Warhol's craft is sufficient for its own needs. (right, Brad Tucker's "Pools," 2000)

You certainly could take issue with the craft of my work and its apparent sloppiness. You wouldn't be the first person to expose "half-ass" or "slacker qualities" in my work. However, don't impose onto my work your conventions about what my work ought to be: "you gotta be spot on and really transform the objects by putting their very mundaneness right up against the high level of craft and attention paradoxically paid to them." Please, I want nothing to do with that. I don't have either the patience or the desire to make meticulously rendered sculptural objects like you suggest. Nor do I want my project to be as calculated as you prescribe. Instead, I am interested in making objects that reflect improvisation and sponeneity. While craft is very important to me, the level of craft in my work will vary in relation to what I determine is appropriate for each work I make. Have we met before? You mention my smile as if it is familiar.
Brad Tucker

Brad,
I gotta say, I am always simultaneously amazed and delighted when anybody gives a shit what I think, but I'm so happy to have these kinds of exchanges. And yes, we have met--at Sala Diaz one night last year. I recalled you being a really nice guy and enjoying meeting you. But you probably met a lot of people that night, and I wouldn't expect you to remember me in particular.

Here's the deal: when I look at art, your motives and intentions as the artist are irrelevant to me. All that's out there is the object, the thing itself, and I can impose anything I want to on it. That's what audiences do, they impose a lifetime of experiencing, seeing and living. Or at least that's what people who trust their own intellects do. The remainder read wall plaques and artist statements to find out what they're supposed to think. It's nice when artists can articulate what they're after, but when I'm standing before a work, I really couldn't care less. The thing has to articulate for itself.

I don't suggest you do anything other than what you're doing. Really, I don't. I will, however, have my reactions and they will be honest and thoughtful ones.

Thank you for clearing up the Conrad Bakker confusion. That was sloppy writing.

And thanks for starting this dialogue. I'm sure I'll see you around. Next time I'll make a point of walking up and re-introducing myself.
ch