The Critics are Revolting
mark webber
Did anyone notice an article in (I believe) last week's NYTimes Sunday
Magazine, about art critic Michael Kimmelman returning to his Piano?
I'm just mumbling aloud here, thinking about Robert Hughes, who used to
visit galleries - that is presumably why he moved to SoHo, NY - and now
prefers to rhapsodize about travel.
I'm wondering where the art center of the world will move to, after all
the New York critics, having drawn sufficient attention to themselves in
print, discover more and more what is truly meaningful to them and take to
their ballet slippers and gardening and tea leaves and stenciling, all
full time.
Of course, there is no real shortage of critics in New York - and as each
one retires to their pianos, there will always be another eager,
hyper-articulate, self-annointed Van Guardian, so desperate to impress a
member of the opposite sex with his/her droll observations that they
forget to look at actual art, and fill the void.
Well anyway, I thought, "shit, there sure is a lot of nastiness being
exchanged among all my dear friends in R.A.F., and maybe if I point out
the possibility that our real foes aren't other artists but these insipid
critics who can't take the trouble to do the job they don't deserve to
have..."
But naaaaah, go ahead. This is a usenet discussion group and if people
stopped trashing each other I wouldn't know where I was. And it is pretty
fucking entertaining, so go ahead. Let's not wory about Michael Kimmleman
rediscovering his love of the spotlight. Let's beat the shit out of Mani!
ever yours,
Mark
Philip Ayers
about critics determining the center is rediculious. Besides, kimmelman in
my experience isn't a shade better than John Russell who was more likable
in print but pretty lean on substance. Kimmmelman has writen some bad
criticism over the years, consistantly bad, giving the Times more or less
a nothing position in the world of art criticism. It's just a good paying
regular job , that's about all. Even though Roberta Smith is an unfair and
sometimes stupid snob, she's still the best thing the times has to offer
up as criticiism.
In article <Pine.PMDF.3.96.9908181...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
mark webber
> I repond before even finishing the message because your assumptions, mark,
> about critics determining the center is rediculious. Besides, kimmelman in
> my experience isn't a shade better than John Russell who was more likable
> in print but pretty lean on substance. Kimmmelman has writen some bad
> criticism over the years, consistantly bad, giving the Times more or less
> a nothing position in the world of art criticism. It's just a good paying
> regular job , that's about all. Even though Roberta Smith is an unfair and
> sometimes stupid snob, she's still the best thing the times has to offer
> up as criticiism.
Hi Philip, glad to hear from you. Yes, well, I wasn't exactly being very
serious - that is the sort of thing one can sense when reading to the end
of a short post like that.
And I don't disagree that Kimmelman is rarely interesting - I think that
is part of the self-interestedness that I was making fun of. And I agree
that Roberta Smith is more worth reading. She does get around - I see her
name in guest books.
And, no, I don't really think that critics determine the center - but when
there is nothing really insightful being written in town it does make NY
seem less vital. I'm not saying it *is* less vital.
Anyway, it was not one of my more serious posts. You'll allow me a rant
now and then won't you?
best,
Mark
blackcat
bc
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote in message
news:Pine.PMDF.3.96.9908181...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU...
mark webber
(snip of my little query)
> Hear, hear, well said!
> bc
Well thanks, Mr. (Mrs.?) Cat. Please feel free to add anything you like!
Mark
mdeli
<webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
>I'm wondering where the art center of the world will move to, after all
>the New York critics, having drawn sufficient attention to themselves in
>print, discover more and more what is truly meaningful to them and take to
>their ballet slippers and gardening and tea leaves and stenciling, all
>full time.
Perhaps even this coterie of artzy fartzy critics are getting bored
with the utter stupidity and incompetence of the mountain of crap they
are daily required to look at. Or perhaps they are getting so rich
pushing the same crap on richy suckers that they can retire early.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Aster Iske
<p.ayers-1808...@pppa31-resaleprinceton1-4r1060.saturn.bbn.com>,
p.a...@mindspring.com says...
>Even though Roberta Smith is an unfair and
>sometimes stupid snob, she's still the best thing the times has to offer
>up as criticiism.
Has anyone ever read David Hickey (sp?)???
Now there is a critic with an ascerbic wit...
John Haber
work more on his book of in-museum interviews with artists, perhaps
his only real contribution to the Times as critic. I'm much happier
having the field left to Roberta Smith. She can find a way to provoke
you in even those capsules.
Russell was good for what he was good for -- knowledgeable defenses of
anything at all. He'd be a great marketing manager!
john
mark webber
Hi John, nice to hear from you.
On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, John Haber wrote:
> Have to admit I was grateful when Kimmelman went off to play piano and
> work more on his book of in-museum interviews with artists, perhaps
> his only real contribution to the Times as critic. I'm much happier
> having the field left to Roberta Smith. She can find a way to provoke
> you in even those capsules.
I'm really kind of amazed at how little serious criticism there is in the
Times. Friday has *some interesting offerings now and then, and Ken
Johnson seems to get out more than many of them - he's another who's
name I see in guest books.
>
> Russell was good for what he was good for -- knowledgeable defenses of
> anything at all. He'd be a great marketing manager!
Yes, that's really an excellent way to put it.
On a more positive note, a friend of mine has just beeen asked to write
little gallery notes for The New Yorker, and he is actually a pretty
serious looker. Unfortunately, also much too ethical to ever refer to a
show of mine, but I understand and respect that....
Mark
Alison A Raimes
<jha...@haberarts.com> writes
>Have to admit I was grateful when Kimmelman went off to play piano and
>work more on his book of in-museum interviews with artists, perhaps
>his only real contribution to the Times as critic. I'm much happier
>having the field left to Roberta Smith. She can find a way to provoke
>you in even those capsules.
Is that what you consider the role of the critic to be, John ? to
provoke ?
--
Alison
JCalv
him to be the most thoughtful critic covering art, at least in New
York. His interviews/tours of contemporary artists through the Met,
sometimes the Modern, are illuminating and show that his career as a
critic was about searching the meaningful, not escaping from it.
There are better critics to pick on than him.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
JCalv
find Kimmelman's interviews interesting? Maybe since I am not a
practicing artist, I don't have the investment that artists do in
seeing whether the art critic/powerbroker is sufficiently enlightened
enough.
mark webber
> Wow, I must be off the mark entirely for this group! Doesn't anyone
> find Kimmelman's interviews interesting?
Yes - I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I don't find them to be of
tremendous critical importance, but they are interesting, and I was
expressing regret that he, and others, find success and a certain aclaim
as critics and then decide they are really artists.
> Maybe since I am not a
> practicing artist, I don't have the investment that artists do in
> seeing whether the art critic/powerbroker is sufficiently enlightened
> enough.
>
Oh they are mostly pretty unenlightened - but they aren't different from
any other segment of the population in that regard.
Mark
mark webber
> I find your post off the mark. Maybe because I like Kimmelman, and find
> him to be the most thoughtful critic covering art, at least in New
> York.
Perhaps I haven't expressed myself clearly. I am expressing
dissapointment that being an art critic wasn't enough for him.
I don't think, however, that he is anywhere near the most thoughtful
critic in NYC. And he certainly prefers to review that which is already
well established.
> His interviews/tours of contemporary artists through the Met,
> sometimes the Modern, are illuminating and show that his career as a
> critic was about searching the meaningful, not escaping from it.
>
> There are better critics to pick on than him.
True. Let's have at them. Your turn.
glad for your contributions,
Mark
John Haber
>Times.
I'm not any longer, alas! I take it for granted. BTW, about Russell
as marketing manager: his obit for Castelli was particularly good,
even though you could see his skill in making a happy story at all
times -- say, when he handles the relation with Sonnabend or even in
giving Castelli more credit for getting to Soho first than he
deserved. (What happened to Cooper?)
>Friday has *some interesting offerings now and then, and Ken
>Johnson seems to get out more than many of them - he's another who's
>name I see in guest books.
He definitely gets out there. I don't enjoy reading him, though. He
doesn't ramble like Kimmelman, but he gushes all the time. I usually
can't figure out what in the artist is actually likeable. (And I
think he'll take anything if there's some loose gesture in it.)
Oh, about The New Yorker. You know, I never did understand where the
capsules come from. They're often pretty good. I wish they had
someone other than Schejldahl as head honcho, but so it goes.
John Haber
>provoke ?
One of the roles. If an artist can do it, so ought someone writing
about art at times.
jh
John Haber
>find Kimmelman's interviews interesting?
Not me. Well, he's comfortable with established artists -- those
museum tours, although even there I can't say he adds any value other
than by initiating it. It doesn't show a probing interviewer at work.
It's like a corporate breakthrough, a product idea. I do appreciate
his sympathy and support for the older living guys. His reviews of
that generation -- such as of Roy Lichtenstein at the Guggenheim --
are his most insightful, I think.
I'm still not ashamed of having used him as whipping boy for the kind
of criticism I did NOT want to do in an upload of mine:
mark webber
(snip)
> >Friday has *some interesting offerings now and then, and Ken
> >Johnson seems to get out more than many of them - he's another who's
> >name I see in guest books.
>
> He definitely gets out there. I don't enjoy reading him, though. He
> doesn't ramble like Kimmelman, but he gushes all the time. I usually
> can't figure out what in the artist is actually likeable. (And I
> think he'll take anything if there's some loose gesture in it.)
I don't disagree, John, but it seems to be perfectly alright for many
critics to "take anything" that features some element they want to
champion. Supporters of every gimmick out there do this. And it doesn't
bother me too much until a reviewer of a scatter art piece, for which
there appears to be no criteria at all, "loves" what he/she sees simply
because of the gimmick.
While Johnson may not be the most discerning eye out there, I think he
does try to draw attention to a lot of worthwhile things.
>
> Oh, about The New Yorker. You know, I never did understand where the
> capsules come from. They're often pretty good.
I only see them now and then, but my understanding is that there are a
couple of people writing them.
Have you ever looked at "Review"? I've seen some pretty good writing in
there. Some pretty annoyed writing, as a matter of fact.
best,
Mark
mark webber
(in reply to Alison)
I found Alison's question pretty interesting, and now that you've replied
(where the hell do go, John, that you leave us hanging for so long?) if
you don't mind, I'd like to pursue this a bit.
Could you name some of the other roles? And could you outline, just a bit,
the roles you see for yourself? I'd be interested in hearing a bit more
about the idea of provoking as well.
thanks very much,
Mark
mark webber
(snip)
> I'm still not ashamed of having used him as whipping boy for the kind
> of criticism I did NOT want to do in an upload of mine:
>
> http://www.haberarts.com/preface.htm
No need to be ashamed, I think. I was glad to read that.
Mark
Alison A Raimes
>>Is that what you consider the role of the critic to be, John ? to
>>provoke ?
>
>One of the roles. If an artist can do it, so ought someone writing
>about art at times.
>
I am on the side that actually *likes* critics writing about art - so
you won't be able to provoke me into an argument here, John ;-) As you
probably already know, I believe in provocation because it questions and
challenges. If the artist is unable to stand the ground under fire then
he is not firm in his convictions. Its healthy.
Cheers !
John Haber
single answer. I think everyone -- a journalist tossing out one-line
recommendations for the weekend, a scholar digging up a lost student
of Rembrandt or the place of a woman in the art work, a middlebrow
like myself in between -- has one thing in common: they're all
sharing their passions. They just go about it differently, in part
because they have different audiences.
A journalist has an audience who either is scared of big words or
knows them quite well, thank you, without our help, someone with
limited time to read, someone who just wants a hint of what we might
be missing. A brief description is fine, accompanied by a strong
judgment.
This has drawbacks, of course: it can be dismissive or empty, like
any taste. I like Roberta Smith and Arthur Danto, as you know, for
pushing the envelope so as to avoid this.
A scholar has an audience with background, understanding, and time.
Or if no one has time to keep up with journals any more, at least a
scholar believes that things will take time to back up. The strength
is that this recognizes how much art is wrapped up in things that
common sense dismisses or takes for granted -- facts and ideas. It
took research to figure out what works constituted the career of a
great Renaissance painter like van Eyck, research that will never be
settled and yet didn't bury him: it brought him out, like unearthing
buried treasure. It took ideas to work out the connection between
Pollock and so many streams of modern art and modern life, and these
connections not only bring Pollock alive, but also make us look at
contemporary artists differently.
In fact, although this approach is more high-falutin', too much for a
public forum, maybe it's really what the public needs most. The idea
that people take naturally to beautiful things is just silly. Art has
to be unfamiliar sometimes, because its very value often lies in
making us see the world around us differently than we would have
before. Modern art is so strange still that even a forum like this,
allegedly for contemporary art loves, mostly hates it. Art history
and art appreciation courses recognize how much one has to learn to
get into art; it took me a decade to like art, period. But every art
deserves someone ready to explain it and defend it.
This, too, has drawbacks. If ordinary critics deride what's not
common sense, this group can take their terms for granted, too,
turning ideas first into jargon and then into hogwash. If a
journalist's taste can elevate the critic above the artist and the
work, not to mention the public, so can all the fancy stuff,
especially if it means one stops describing. Good ideas amount to
good description: anything worth saying, even a "plain" account of a
work of art, means telling a story, and that means a point of view.
But not every story gets to the point.
My ideal is to draw the best from both. So the critic's roles are to
defend, describe, evoke, and explain -- explain myself and what I see.
Is it by saying something different about the art that I might
provoke, or rather is it the art for which I'm hoping to evoke my love
that's the provocation? If I'm right about the connection between
ideas and description, I doubt the question makes sense.
As I say, I've a really long defense or two of what I think my aims
are, and I'd be flattered if anyone bothered to read them. The
defense of my middlebrow approach -- what I call memories of long New
Yorker articles -- is
http://www.haberarts.com/preface.htm
The defense of why art takes words AT ALL is
http://www.haberarts.com/attrib.htm
If I'm right that what we feel about art is going to be in flux as
long as there is new art, then I have to accept criticism myself, so
feel free.
I'll end by excerpting the first of the above, as close I get to a
statement of purpose. It refers to a show where I was not satisfied
with Kimmelman's review.
>>
I believe that critics after Modernism have to ask questions...
Just what was going on at the Brooklyn Museum? Exactly why were so
many plein air painters unknown, and what were they doing at last in
New York City? Had scholars been all that stupid? Was Corot working
with other painters or against them, like Pissarro then joining
younger men in the first Impressionist exhibition? Were academic
traditions dying or giving young artists a chance? Or are those
categories no longer even valid?
Modernism put faith in an avant-garde at odds with the art around it,
and it began with landscape painting. Postmodern museums often set
Impressionism alongside the studio art it derided or ignored. Or they
try to revive other genres, such as still life and portraiture. Which
story was unfolding out in Brooklyn? Perhaps neither. Perhaps
Impressionism really stood for a forgotten mass movement. Or perhaps
it marked a turning away from the movements of Corot's youth, away
from their faith in visual experience.
I do not expect The Times to give me answers, but I expect to be
provoked with questions. I want to know what it means to create works
of new and lasting value. I want criticism, like art, to ask what a
claim to be modern means.
I want to know how the beauty I see in a landscape collides with my
expectations and with Corot's hopes. I want to know about the role of
the museum in reshaping the past. I worry about who it once excluded
and who it newly excludes, especially women as artists, self-possessed
subjects, and viewers. I demand criticism in which "How nice!" is not
a compliment.
I believe I can do better. I know that critical judgment can hide some
bothersome history. I want to make art exciting by making that history
my own. I can favor art that is open-ended, contemporary, and creative
-- and give it a past. I do not have to stop at detachment: I can
describe, and I can philosophize.
I say I can describe. If I communicate what I see and believe about
art, judgments of taste will take care of themselves.
<<
John Haber
> it seems to be perfectly alright for many critics to
>"take anything" that features some element they
>want to champion.
That's a fair point. I guess I better admit to myself that Johnson
DOES have something he cares enough about to want others to see
consistently, so he's contributing something, however fluffy his
tastes or reviews. I'll look out for him better now.
John
John Haber
short, and maybe it does answer Mark's question a little -- what
criticism should be for:
>>
Breaking the silence
Long before words, art already comes surrounded by walls. Unfamiliar
works have the barrier of their strangeness, almost akin to fakery.
Famous ones come with an even more dangerous obstacle, their
familiarity and reputation, almost akin to a religion. Faced with art,
then, most people just let their needs and their parents' truisms do
the talking. Or they wait for the artist to start lecturing.
Thankfully, they usually wait in vain.
Words never contain a work of art. Words can, though, create small
openings in the walls that already exist, so that others may begin to
look -- and to see. Art, Rilke said, is of an infinite silence; it can
be reached only by love. Yet anyone who has sustained a loving
relationship knows that it takes a lot of communication.
Art asks one to enter a broken conversation, a half-overheard dialog
between the work and the world. Newcomers to art distrust that demand.
Most often, too, they would never knowhow to begin. A critic's job is
to break the ice.
<<
mark webber
Hi John,
First I want to thank you for such a serious and thoughtful reply. I
didn't expect it, and it is pretty impassioned and was a pleasure to read.
I'm going to address a couple of things point by point if that is ok.
On Wed, 25 Aug 1999, John Haber wrote:
> Mark and Alison really want to know what writers can do?
I was thinkng specificly of critics - not writers in general, but as it
turned out, your more general approach was pretty useful.
> There's no
> single answer. I think everyone -- a journalist tossing out one-line
> recommendations for the weekend, a scholar digging up a lost student
> of Rembrandt or the place of a woman in the art work, a middlebrow
> like myself in between -- has one thing in common: they're all
> sharing their passions. They just go about it differently, in part
> because they have different audiences.
It was right here that I realized why you were (perhaps deliberately,
perhaps not) generalizing. You aren't just discribing what a critic does,
but also historians and estheticians.
I'm not at all opposed to these three distinct jobs being mutually
informed - on the contrary; my feeling is that too many
(contemporary) critics are estheticly retarded and/or a bit ignorant of
history, and that too many historians are unwilling to make qualitative
distinctions.
But there are three distinct job descriptions here. Collecting them as
"writers" is fine, but I'm still curious about your ideas of what,
specificly, are the resposibilities of the critic. Or the other
individual jobs, too.
>
> A journalist has an audience who either is scared of big words or
> knows them quite well, thank you, without our help, someone with
> limited time to read, someone who just wants a hint of what we might
> be missing. A brief description is fine, accompanied by a strong
> judgment.
>
> This has drawbacks, of course: it can be dismissive or empty, like
> any taste.
I think you'll have to agree that whether someone writes lengthy or brief
descriptions it can be dismissive or empty. Further, I'm not sure being
dismissive is a bad thing.
In fact, being dismissive in print may be one of the things I don't see
enough of.
(snip)
Your next paragraph I have a couple of little difficulties with:
> A scholar has an audience with background, understanding, and time.
This seems like a somewhat artificial or faulty accessment. I don't think
the audience for scholarship is at all limited to this group. Maybe "time"
but not background or understanding. Where is the bridge, the chain of
development and learning, between the neophyte and the scholar?
> Or if no one has time to keep up with journals any more, at least a
> scholar believes that things will take time to back up. The strength
> is that this recognizes how much art is wrapped up in things that
> common sense dismisses or takes for granted -- facts and ideas.
This is a most interesting point to me. Are you saying that non-visual
issues take longer to write about than, say, pictorial issues?
To avoid a mile long post, I'll stop here. I think there is still plenty
of interest in your post - very meaty stuff and I'm really glad you posted
it - but I'm afraid you'll disappear again if I serve too big a meal.
thanks very much,
Mark
mark webber
Thanks for this, too. Very poetic. But remember, Jackson already broke the
ice. BSG.
On Wed, 25 Aug 1999, John Haber wrote:
John Haber
Mark, I'm dense: that went over my head. Who's Jackson? My only
associations right now are Andrew, Pollock, and Milt.
John Haber
>and learning, between the neophyte and the scholar?
Good question, Mark. As you got to the end, you probably saw that
it's the lack of something like that, something that avoids the
problems of either extreme I rashly caricature, that motivates me.
mark webber
> >But remember, Jackson already broke the ice.
>
> Mark, I'm dense: that went over my head. Who's Jackson? My only
> associations right now are Andrew, Pollock, and Milt.
>
That doesn't really qualify you as dense at all.
Although I'm very fond of Milt - I have a number of his recordings -
I was quoting an often quoted line of Dekooning's. "Jackson broke the
ice" was his summary of whose achievements were notable in the forties in
New York.
Andrew Jackson? Did he play vibes too?
Mark
mark webber
> >Where is the bridge, the chain of development
> >and learning, between the neophyte and the scholar?
>
> Good question, Mark. As you got to the end, you probably saw that
> it's the lack of something like that, something that avoids the
> problems of either extreme I rashly caricature, that motivates me.
Yup.
Is that all we're going to chew on though? Are you using a system or
news reader that limits your ability to reply with included text?
I always want a little more from you, John, than you offer in your
replies.
gratefully,
Mark
John Haber
>replies.
I babble way too much. Feels selfish to me.
BTW, good news. I keep saying I liked a show on Staten Island about
childhood in photography and contemporary art that didn't get reviewed
much. It's been extended through most of the fall.
John