I thought Christina was an exceptional lecturer, her words flow from her mouth so poetically and you can tell she is consumed in language. Writing with art is a different perspective than the previous talks, so it became very interesting to me. I enjoyed Christina speaking about Quodlibetica and how the "made up word" fit so perfectly with what she was trying to accomplish with the site. It was wonderful to hear how she is pleased with her job because there is always something new to write about and or critique. Something that caught my attention was how she thought of herself and other art critics as interpreters for the art, she said " Art doesn't do what language does". This was an interesting perspective because the maker of the art does not always know the possibility of his or her own work, and what kind of conversation or memories, or ideas that can happen when one views their piece. I also was interested in the way she talked about getting to know the artist and their work and how she tries to make her writing very much about the artist instead of herself.
While listening to Christina I had an AHA! moment, I figured out where my discomfort came from as she would say. The last lecture with Dianna and Alex at the Walker made me so uncomfortable and I couldn't figure out why, I thought to myself that I really did not care for the two of them much. As I was listening the Christina and her argument on how the artist does not get to decide the meaning of his or her work, I thought this must be their thinking and immediately felt bad for considering them standoffish. The two ladies may have the same mindset, that they really aren't in control of what the art means and they maybe just don't want to reveal what their art means to them, because they want the viewer to connect and experience their paintings in any context they would like.