What I would have liked to see in the art criticism piece -
First of all, the writer really "got" the Water Book piece. It was conceptually and visually tight, ie very well put together, and provocative. For our piece - it would have been nice if she'd been able to take in the flow and sensuality of the visual component. One of the other artists, while helping finalize the direction in which to hang the piece (it read better horizontally) noted that it had the form and feeling of lovemaking. Quite perceptive, and her comment showed real openness to the content AND form. Had the reviewer read the poetry carefully, she may have noticed the connections between text and image. Granted, it required a stretch. Maybe that requirement is unrealistic. I am pondering now, not sure.
Also - and what I always look for in a review - is the use and bringing to bear of the reviewer's broad knowledge of present and past artists and artistic forms and ideas. I checked out Rosenquist pop art. Well yeah, I can see a vague connection abstractly, but not really. What about Feminism, repetition, grid like construction, Phillip Guston (I mentioned him to the reviewer).
And "Body Tracts" - the reference to informational brochures in a doctor's office? What about other artists (not in this show) who have combined image and text in this lovely and almost musical way?
All in all, Rousseau gives a decent overview of the show. I think if I just read this review and looked at the photos, despite the slight thumbing of the nose tone, I'd be sure to visit it. So there you go. Thanks! All publicity is good publicity, and in this city, even being mentioned as an artist in the newspaper is a gift!