It’s Bad Review Time Again!

Ever vigilant of badly written reviews, Tyler Green mentioned this terrible review in the Houston Press.  Sometimes I wonder why the public has such a hard time grasping contemporary art.   After reading Troy Schulze’s ramblings, I think the answer lies here:  some of the blame goes to critics guilty of dereliction of duty.  Click here to read Troy Schulze’s underinformed, overly personal, review of Paul Villinsky’s Emergency Response Studio.  Look for the apparent total lack of knowledge about historical precedents like Duchamp and the readymade, failure to mention other contemporary artists working with the exact same materials and even ideas, and finally ceding his critical voice to a local bar owner/artist.  If he doesn’t feel qualified to begin with, don’t begin!

This review was so bad, I had to add a comment on the review:

This review seems written by someone that lacks a very basic grounding in twentieth century art. The argument about whether Paul Villinski’s Emergency Response Studio “is this art” is besides the point and tragically outdated. I mean has this critic even heard of Duchamp? Can we expect equal outrage over the MOMA’s snowshovel (In Advance of a Broken Arm, 1915) displayed as art? Not only do the antecedents to this piece lie over a century ago, there are also artists currently working in a similar vein, even explicitly examining mobile living units. In fact Andrea Zittel exhibited in Houston in 2005! Yet the author makes no mention of other artists working in similar modes and instead chooses to attack Villinski in an outmoded language about a “lack of art product.” Perhaps Mr. Schulze would prefer a banner saying ART draped over the piece, so he is less confused.

Schulze also accuses Villinski of: “backhandedly suggest[ing] that rescue workers, medical professionals and city planners don’t think inventively to solve problems.” When all the artist ACTUALLY says is: “It also suggested that the inventive, nontraditional thinking practiced by visual artists can be a valuable part of the mix as we attempt to heal.” How does that statement backhandedly suggest anything? It doesn’t single anyone else out, doesn’t disparage the work in New Orleans, it merely suggests that artists “can be a valuable part of [that] mix.” What a egregious misreading by Schulze of a SIMPLE statement!

I’m also not convinced that Troy Schulze understands Prospect.1’s goal, to let artists create work which would then bring tourists and money to the city. It was very baldly commercial, rebuilding the tourism industry and simply bringing in money to the city was a stated goal. So when Schulze cuttingly states: “Villinski’s swanky pad remained parked in New Orleans, attracting onlookers and the press.” The artwork is actually accomplishing its goals in the city, but Schulze doesn’t see or understand that, a dangerous thing for a critic.

Also by implying that the artist should have left the work in New Orleans, the author overlooks the fact that by bringing it to Houston, Villinski is reminding a different geographic area again of New Orleans. Attracting the press and bringing attention to New Orleans is a very large aspect of the way this functions. Another piece Schulze overlooks.

Ironically, the first comment from New Orleans artist ‘Sidonie’ showed a better grasp of the artwork itself, its context and its wider function than the author of this article ever came close to.

What a disappointing, personal attack on the artist and what a disappointing, uninformed review.

–Abraham Ritchie, Chicago

Interviews with MCA Director, AIC Curator

Past interviews for anyone interested in our cultural institutions:

Alan Artner for the Chicago Tribune interviewed the new director of the Museum of Contemporary Art (MCA), Madeleine Grynsztejn about her plans for the future of the MCA. She keeps her cards pretty close in the interview but the good news is that her Olafur Eliasson exhibit will be coming here next Spring.

Tyler Green for his Modern Art Notes interviewed Art Institute of Chicago curator Lisa Dorin about the “Focus” shows that spotlight a contemporary artist and particular concerns of such a show, especially as they relate to the Art Institute as a whole. It’s in two parts: Part One, and Part Two.

The Critic in the 21st Century (Newspaper)

Earlier today I wrote about Alan Artner’s article on minimalism from last month and quickly received a response from Tyler Green of Modern Art Notes, the author who prompted my post in the first place. Green brings up a good point: that the role of the critic is to render opinion, not to educate. I agree that the critic’s primary role is to give professional judgment of the merits of artwork, however, I think that the role of the critic, particularly a major newspaper’s art critic, cannot be limited to handing down verdicts on art. In the 21st century we are witnessing the further evolution of the critic, the emergence of a multivalent critic.

With newspaper subscriptions dwindling and art usually (and unfortunately) cast as a subcategory of Entertainment, the newspaper critic must find new ways to remain relevant to the audience. This is imperative, else art criticism in newspaper ceases altogether, which would be a true tragedy. Relevancy doesn’t mean pandering to the public, it means addressing the perceived wants and needs of the audience. Why do people want read about art? I believe that people want to learn something about art primarily, whether that is through an essay piece or an opinion piece, and far secondarily they want a judgment.

For instance, people aren’t really reading the review of the Edward Hopper show to find out if the art is good or not, that’s a foregone conclusion, this is a nationally traveling show of a world famous artist containing iconic works like “Nighthawks” and “Chop Suey.” The verdict of “good art” is in before the review is written, what then is the critic to do? Give people the background knowledge that they should have for the show, in a word, educate. My speculation is that people pick up the paper thinking, “Hmmm well the Art Institute is having a show on Edward Hopper that I should see, I love “Nighthawks,” and I know he’s an important artist. I’ll read this review to learn more before I go to the show.”

I believe these changes to the critic’s role apply chiefly (probably only) to the art critics of major newspapers in major cities. The critical role is narrowed by these blockbuster shows and the refusal of the newspapers to cover anything but. Criticism for the emerging art, the gallery shows has migrated from the major newspapers to smaller newspapers (i.e. New City, F-News, The Chicago Reader, etc.) and blogs. It seems newspapers don’t want to take risks on anything and so safely stick to established taste. Ironically, taking risks on arts coverage seems like it could revitalize newspapers, turning them into cultural necessities, but they don’t see it that way I am sure, hence art has less space and sports as much as ever. As I see it, Artner is creatively expanding his role as critic. It is especially interesting that the article on Minimalism was written after conferring with the Museum of Contemporary Art about which art people have the most trouble understanding. Clearly, Artner is using the power of the pen to serve the public interest, giving them a little more information on minimalism, kind of like an art editorial. Newspapers try to educate their readers on a variety of issues: politics, history, sports, etc., why not art also? It also bears mentioning that the week of April 18th was a slow art week and the article appeared under the criticism-eschewing heading: “School of Thought: Art.”

Art criticism is still alive and well and someday it will migrate back into newspapers, but I believe that this new kind of multivalent critic is also here to stay. People in the U.S. know so little of art and it’s being aggressively pruned out of the K-12 education to make way for math and science education. That said, it seems people want to learn more about art than ever before and increasingly the newspaper art critic will be looked to to fill that role, both by the public and the newspaper’s editor.

Minimalism, Conceptualism and Critics

In the weekend roundup on Modern Art Notes today (5/5) this article by Alan Artner from the Chicago Tribune caused the blog author Tyler Green to complain: “I hate it when art critics get preachy-educational, learn-this-because-it’s-good-for-you. Guess what? It’s OK if not everyone gets or likes minimalism or abex or whatever.”

In this case I think that Green missed the point of the article, that is Artner wasn’t telling people they had to like it, he was using his position as critic in a major newspaper to spread information to people who don’t understand minimalism. And I have to agree with him, minimalism and conceptualism are incredibly misunderstood by not only wider public but even by critics, which was one of my issues with the Amy Sillman review. At the Art Institute they have a piece by Donald Judd that is a perfect example of why Artner wrote this article. It is a triangular, plywood box the bottom of which slopes up midway on one of the angles. Every time I am looking at the piece, usually about 5-10 people come up, look in the box, see it is empty and move on. They have totally missed the point and now dismissed the artist and art. This is exactly what Artner is addressing when he says:

Our limitation—not the works’: Casual viewers balk at art that expresses nothing but itself. But all honest art is first about itself. What it may tell us about the world comes after considerations of shape, color, proportion and so on. And such considerations make the art. If we’re focused only on an artwork’s effect on us, we may find what makes a piece boring. But that is our limitation, not the works’, which may be extraordinary in thought and how they’re put together, apart from their immediate effect on viewers. So it is within the compass of Minimal art.

He’s not chiding people for disliking minimalism, he’s urging them to slow down, examine the work in detail, think about it. Which are all necessary to really enjoying minimalist work. When the average museum -goer spends something like 10 seconds or less in front of a painting on average, it is no surprise people are confused about minimalism, a form that requires more than a quick glance.

I guess I shouldn’t even raise the question about whether this is an article, a whole conversation, on conceptualism rather than minimalism, as Sol LeWitt wrote: “there has been much written about minimal art, but I have not discovered anyone who admits to doing this kind of thing.”

Modern Art Notes & Mission Accomplished

Yesterday MAN asked readers to contribute thoughts about art, war and remembrance and I suggested Michael Rakowitz’s “The Invisible Enemy Should Not Exist (Recovered, Missing, Stolen Series)” (2007), shown here in Chicago at the Hyde Park Art Center earlier this year. Read it on MAN or here:

Loss and memory are central to Michael Rakowitz’s “The Invisible Enemy Should Not Exist (Recovered, Missing, Stolen Series),” 2007, which recently showed here in Chicago at the Hyde Park Art Center in their “Consuming War” group show. This work revolves around the fact that in 2003 the National Museum in Baghdad was looted and 15,000 artifacts were stolen, some dating as far back as 4000 BCE. To date approximately 8,000 artifacts have been recovered. Rakowitz created replicas of these objects using refuse: discarded Arabic newspaper and packaging from Middle Eastern food. It is appropriate to recreate ancient objects like a bull’s head or an architectural frieze from trash considering how the American invasion treated these priceless objects of human history. However it would be wrong to imply that they do not a have a serious presence, they do, and the use of discarded material serves to heighten the feeling of loss and the inadequacy of the recreation: these objects of human culture maybe lost forever. Accompanying the object are labels containing the registrar data from National Museum, its status (recovered, missing, stolen), and a quote from those involved with the museum, from the ex-director, Dr. Donny George to Donald Rumsfeld. There is hope contained in the exhibit, the objects existence seem at points a pure idea, remade they are gone but not forgotten, Dr. George’s quote about how some citizens removed objects and brought them back when it conditions were more safe, and the small beacon of hope in a single word on the label: Recovered. However, the overwhelming feeling of loss and memorialization permeates the exhibit. We have lost key pieces of our shared human culture due to an illegitimate war and inept, callous and boorish leaders. As quoted on one of the labels, Rumsfeld on the looting of the museum: “Stuff happens.”

Playing into the theme of loss and memory the White House Press Secretary said this as reported by the AP:

“President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific and said `mission accomplished’ for these sailors who are on this ship on their mission,” White House press secretary Dana Perino said Wednesday. ”And we have certainly paid a price for not being more specific on that banner. And I recognize that the media is going to play this up again tomorrow, as they do every single year.”

I guess I am now part of the media because I, for one, am going to remember that this war was started under false pretenses, falsely linked to 9/11 and continues to be, and is a war with no real plan before, or currently for withdrawing or reconstructing. I, for one, am going to remember Bush’s smug speech on that ship, how false his words were then and how false they are still. I will remember being lied to by Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, President Bush, and the rest about the WMDs that simply were not there and the connections to 9/11 that were not, are not, and continue not to be there. I, for one, am going to continue to remember the lies upon lies that this administration tries to force on the public about the reasons for the Iraq War initially and continuing, particularly as they try to link Iraq to 9/11 which is a lie. So, yes, Diana Perino, the media plays this up every year because we are lied to again and again, and it has cost America 4,000 lives. I “play this up” because I want to remember that the Mission was not Accomplished, American lives are still be sacrificed for Bush’s lies.

The Curse of Critical Laziness

Amy Sillman, P, 2007

Modern Art Notes (MAN) yesterday mentioned the critical reception of Amy Sillman’s exhibit at the Hirshhorn Museum in Washington D.C. in the Washington Post.  The review by Michael O’Sullivan is symptomatic of many, many other reviews that appear in newspapers across the nation as it seems some critics simply lack understanding of the art they are assigned to review.  It is almost as if they write a review to match how their audience might feel about a certain artist, which is not the job of an art critic.  It is lazy, it is intellectually dishonest, and it is a disservice to the readers of the Washington Post.  

I’ve restrained myself more than once from citing specific examples, but the review in the Washington Post is so unbelievably bad that it cannot pass without strong objection from myself.  Construing Sillman as a conceptual artist is inaccurate, she’s also an abstract painter and later on is described as such.  O’Sullivan frames his assertion as if the artist describes herself as simply a conceptualist, writing: “The artist, a rising star in the contemporary art scene, calls it “conceptualism.” I say it’s a gimmick.”  This is quote mining, giving no further context what else she said.  O’Sullivan appears to not understand the difference between Conceptual art and the method an abstract artist might use to produce their work (see inspiration).  He goes on to complain, “Rather, the artist says, they’re “investigations” of the space between figuration and abstraction. More artspeak? Yup.”  What is O’Sullivan’s objection to this simplest of explanations (this is not artspeak, if you as a critic don’t understand what figuration and abstraction are and how they relate to each other you should not be writing on art) of what her work is about?  The transposition of the three-dimensional onto the two-dimensional has been a concern of abstract art since Picasso and Braque continuing through Gerhard Richter and most likely, will continue to be.  Which is the point that O’Sullivan laments he cannot find.  

At the end of the review one is left with the feeling that O’Sullivan has no vocabulary or understanding of abstract art.  O’Sullivan seems adrift in a sea of abstraction without any recognizable realism to anchor him.  Thus he searches desperately for ”any visual clues that connect one image to its source.”  He laments that the paintings look “like inanimate objects,” which they are.  Under the accompanying image to the article he writes “Amy Sillman’s “investigations” of the space between figuration and abstraction lack depth,” in what sense does he mean ‘depth’?  I’m sure he means it pejoratively, but in abstract art one doesn’t want depth, and it comes out as an unintended compliment.  At the end of his article, besides confusing High Conceptualism with Sillman’s work yet again, O’Sullivan tries to take another swipe at her through quote mining her own words and only ends up confused yet again.  While implying that portraiture would be more interesting than abstraction, he tries to negatively spin Sillman’s quote: “It’s basically just moving from being in a relationship with those people to being in a relationship with an oil painting.”  Sillman is essentially re-phrasing a Pollock quote, and O’Sullivan doesn’t pick up on that, or address the formalist issues it raises, instead he implies that this is why in his book her paintings lack “passion.”  From beginning to end this article lacks knowledge of art, bungles vocabulary, misrepresents Sillman and never gives exact reasons for his own distaste for the work.

Sharon L. Butler at Two Coats of Paint, suggests that O’Sullivan “might be more comfortable writing for the sports section.”  Others have thought this a little strong, but I think she is exactly correct for the reasons I have just mentioned, if you don’t understand basic tenets of 20th century art you shouldn’t be writing about it, you should be writing for sports.  It’s a disservice to the readers, the artist, the paper and the field in general.

 

Tyler Green likes the way we do it

From Modern Art Notes:

“I admire the way the Art Institute of Chicago uses their ‘Focus’ program. Last year, while the AIC was in the midst of a series of exhibitions and other programs focusing on the Silk Road, the museum presented the work of Gulnara Kasmalieva and Muratbek Djumaliev, two artists whose work fits perfectly into the museum’s focus on the Silk Road. (The artists show with Ed Winkleman. Ed is a blogger and a friend.)

I also liked what the AIC did with its Jana Gunstheimer ’Focus’ show: It provided American audiences with the artist’s first American exhibition. (That’s another way in which these shows can transcend the typical: In best-case scenarios, institutions give their curators the freedom to discover.) Gunstheimer’s show also specifically addressed Chicago. Both exhibitions were curated by the AIC’s Lisa Dorin. ”