Skip to content

The Curse of Critical Laziness

April 18, 2008

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.

 

Advertisements
3 Comments leave one →
  1. December 31, 2008 10:04 am

    I don’t read art cricism, and since you seem to know, if you could let me know a few good writers, two or three …..? By accident I only discovered somebody whose name I would remember as Soren Melkian, and I read him maybe only on art marketing.

    And I have seen things by one Robert Hughes, but it was in a book on Goya, and it was of the waiting room magazine kind.

    • thebram31 permalink*
      January 13, 2009 1:07 pm

      I think you are referring to Souren Melikian and perhaps his book on pricing Old Master paintings?

      As far as recommending critics, there are some things that Robert Hughes is right on about and some things he is way off on. He’ll definitely give you an opinion on contemporary art but I wouldn’t trust it too much, he’s much better on more historic art (like Goya).

      I would suggest reading Clement Greenberg first off. His theories of modernist painting are often referred to, and are a good place to start if you feel bewildered by abstract expressionists like Jackson Pollock or Willem de Kooning.

      Peter Schjeldahl and his Let’s See is a good place to start off for contemporary art, I would recommend him over Hughes. He doesn’t pull any punches in his writing and has a good handle and understanding of contemporary art practices

  2. January 25, 2009 12:44 pm

    Thank you very much!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: