Roberta Smith Fireworks

EUREKA!

Roberta Smith, writing in the NYT (3/31/02) says that the "Whitney Biennial [long a sink-hole of random expression and a desert of beauty] is a sign that museums are becoming irrelevent to new art." This stunning admission is the first instance I have seen that writers are trying to distance themselves from art that is bleak, pious, naive, monotonous (right angles and primary colors) and - yes - isolated [like Arafat, who in his irrelevence is so powerful that Sharon must now isolate him]. What's more, it is patronizing and irritating, including little in the way of - painting! Look ma, the Emporer has no clothes! It's over! The clouds are breaking. I hereby declare that this piece is required reading for anyone who wants to speak to me again here in these pages. [structural emphasis added for effect] --James

I think Roberta Smith's article is brave.  And I am not at all sure what she is saying. I rather feel as if she has pulled out a massive shotgun and fired it in the general direction of the Whitney, hitting contemporary art, artists and the contemporary museum mindset

Let's say she gets her way, then what?  

Maybe it is about aging (mine and hers).  I am now in my mid-50's, and my unconfirmed recollection is that Ms. Smith is not any younger.  When I was in my 20's I embraced my peers (mostly, I guess I still embrace my peers) and now that I am "older and wiser" (ha), I find a majority of what 20-somethings do to be artistically irrelevant.

I am incapable of being objective.  Maybe you can lend perspective.   Arguably, the art of the new has always offended, from the Impressionists, to the Ashcan School to the present day.    As we sit back (no, I do not have a LazyBoy) and try to get it all into context (there's that word again), I wonder what it is going to take to get it to all come into focus.   Genuinely, I'd like to know what you think. Is what is going on in the art world any different than it ever was? Or, am I just denying the pulse?   Thank you, Paul

Paul Klein - Re: Paul Klein   3/31/02; 7:15:43 PM (reads: 2540, responses: 1) There is a really brave review of the current Whitney Biennial by Roberta Smith in today's New York Times.

I have reprinted it: http://kleinart.com/midd/Web_6/web_6.html

Some suggest that it chastises ART. Others think it is a broad condemnation of MUSEUMS today. And I don't know. I'd like to know what you think.

It is again interesting to observe the influence of context.

I read the review online last night with little teeny tiny pictures. (The reproduction I have given you has no pictures at all.)  I didn't look at the printed version of the article until about 5 this afternoon, with a really big picture of a nothing work of art on the cover of the Art Section.  I can't come up with new meaning, but how I saw it first, and how I saw it second are somehow relevant.

Another dichotomy that has been flogging me for years and that I will confess to you, has to do with the onslaught of the new. I can't tell if a lot of the new is vapid or if I am just getting old. (Yeah, yeah, yeah, they are not mutually exclusive. I know.)

I read Roberta Smith's powerful condemnation of the show and wonder if she is getting old too and if she ponders the same questions I do, or is she just in denial, or I am? --Paul

Alexandra Cristina Castillo-Kesper - Re: Paul Klein   4/2/02; 1:46:54 PM (reads: 2543, responses: 0)

Paul

After reading Roberta Smith's article for the second time, I realized how the piece made me feel overall: depressed! I read the New York Times daily, and I think at this point, after reading other art periodicals, such as ArtNews, I have come to realize the Times dumbs down its writing, and this is harmful and shameful. Smith does much more telling than showing in this article, and I lose the art focus of the piece. I feel the Times gives itself this responsibility of telling the public what is the "right thing" too see, instead of leaving room open for free thought. Think of what this is doing to Times' readers!? Do we need people like Smith telling us how it is, or can we make these decisions ourselves?

   But the truth is....doesn't contemporary art always get slashed? And what's more, conceptual art? I think that conceptual/contemporary art is attacked often for the art world inherits it as "high art", and this isolates it from most people. Sure...one can read the pamphlet that goes with an exhibit and say, "By george, I think I can understand it!"...but they DON'T got it....   Not that anyone has to "get" an art piece-- that's not the point of art.... I think it is the role of an institution to educate the public...to intrigue the public about a show on exhibition...most Americans are turned off about conceptual art because it is presented in a bleak, dry manner...traditional white walls with abstract composition....(and in my opinion, a Victor Vasarely looks much cooler on a television)... I tend to agree with the comments from former Moma curator in regards to earthwork projects...(for example like Smithson's Spiral Getty -- which is at the Met)...I at least think that the idea of the Traditional museum will have to change..Art needs to push the boundaries of space to engage an interested and excited audience....and... especially with large installation and monumental pieces on display in museums and galleries--the museum monarchy needs to find the proper space for these pieces to entertain the public...(have you been to Storm King Mountain?--large sculptural garden--well a garden the size of a 18-hole golf course)

Mass Moca (http://www.massmoca.org) for example, (a place I'm totally partial to but for good reason)---has taken an old industrial warehouse, renovated it and has made it into a cutting-edge museum...I go there and get so excited because chidren and parents have a great time being entertained by media art and what's more, wanting to find out more about it--the conceptual aspect...I'm not saying that conceptual art is necessarily limited to media art...my point is that it is the role of the art emperors to reach out and touch a larger base of people

No...Contemporary art does not have a gray future...I feel that sometimes it is the art critics that cause all this confusion with the future of art...they constantly feel they have to label, find context, and define--when sometimes with innovation, the long list of references simply does not exist...

I have not been to the Whitney show yet but I'll be sure to get back to you on my reactions...

Alex

Heather Harris - Re: Paul Klein   4/2/02; 8:25:59 PM (reads: 2513, responses: 0)

After a week of relaxation and limited access to a computer, I was completely overwhelmed with all that has happened in the art world and our weblogs while I was absent. After an intense and exciting discussion of what we were going to do about Roberta Smith's article and the Whitney exhibit, I took it upon myself to find the article and read it. I wanted to know what all the hype was about and how I would react.

So I did. I read it and was completely surprised at Smith's blunt attack on the art world. Although I respected her opinion, I did not respect her writing style. I feel as though she did not respect the art world of today and she especially didn't respect most of the artists or the people that put together the show. Plus she didn't respect the audience. I feel as though a good amount of people probably had a "woah" reaction after reading the article.

I found that she contradicted herself in areas and I was at times confused who she was criticizing. Was she trying to criticize the artists or the museum professionals? Does she just think that contemporary abstract art has no place in a traditional museum? Or was she criticizing how they set up the show? Or maybe a little bit of both. Not only did she criticize, but in certain points of the article she praised the conceptual artists? Now wait...she didn't just respect their work and effort but actually praised their works. So isn't this contradicting herself?

But the paragraph that blew me away was

"TOO much of the art on view at the Whitney simply adds up. It is literally what it is, about what it is about, and otherwise just sits there. There is no room for the imagination, nothing to project into, no place for reverie or dreams."

Now ok...This statement to me is just too incredibly biased. And she is writing to an audience that she should be informing. Her job is to give her opinion, in a way, but not try and sway the entire population into believing that her opinion is the only right one. That's the message that I get from this paragraph. You can immediately tell that she doesn't appreciate contemporary abstract art. And the thing that completely surprised me about myself reacting to this was that I am not passionate about abstract art. I like some of it and I respect it, but it is not what I love (sorry Paul). However, I do respect the opinions of people who are head over heals crazy about it. I do not think that I can interpret it like I can with some other pieces, but I can comment on its form, structure, color, lines, feeling, etc. I do not think that it is something that just sits there and I would never tell anyone that their opinion is wrong because it doesn't match mine.

For example, I was immediately drawn to Stackhouse's Medium Light Blue. Why? 1. Because swirls are my favorite shape 2. Because blue is one of my favorite colors 3. Because I like the way that the two blues contrast and how my eyes are immediately drawn to the swirl so that it pops out of the picture 4. Because to me, it is cool and I would put it on my wall and stare at it for a while. And although I don't really like most abstract art I like this. But, to me its a picture and I can't interpret it at all. And good luck to the people who think they can. But I have no clue what Stackhouse was thinking at the time or why he chose to make what he did. 

But, I can look at a Singer Sargent or Renoir and see the objects come to life and I can interpret what I think is going on in the artist's head. But would I ever not respect a person who loves abstract art and can find meaning in it? NEVER...and this is what Smith does. She attacks so many lovers of a different style of art. And I think it's wrong.   --Heather

 Paul Klein - Re: Paul Klein   4/2/02; 11:27:46 PM (reads: 2505, responses: 1)

I think we are overlooking something.

Art is personal, right?

There are NO TRUTHS.

It is up to each of us.

Who cares what Roberta Smith says, really? If we agree, we tout our brilliance. If we don't, we muter unprintables defiantly, but are any of us changing our opinions because of what she said?

I don't even feel the need to go to New York to see the show. I don't really care. I find it rather comic, right up there with Britney Spears not knowing who Yoko Ono is. --Paul

Alexandra Cristina Castillo-Kesper - Re: Paul Klein   4/2/02; 11:40:41 PM (reads: 2511, responses: 0)

Haha---Paul, explain yourself!! Why don't you care about the show? Don't you want to discover the Biennial through your own eyes? Who cares about what Roberta Smith says...it's not going to change my outlook on the show and my personal response to it. Speak more about what "we are overlooking"...I'm interested.... --Alex

Paul Klein - Re: Paul Klein   4/3/02; 12:18:27 AM (reads: 2499, responses: 0)

Hmmm, Alexandra,

I see the Biennial as a political event and not an art exhibit.  Everybody that has an opinion gets out their soapbox.  There are not enough works by any artist to get a sense of what that artist's soul.   The curator is more concerned about how he will be received than about the art.  He's got to.  He's human. Any artist in the show has an appropriately overinflated ego. Doesn't make for an easy beginning to a relationship. The show doesn't do much for me. 

Group museum shows don't give me much.  The problem is that I have an advantage you don't and I take it for granted.  I apologize.  But I am fortunate in that I hear about artists from other artists, or from dealers and sometimes from one-person museum exhibits.

What we are overlooking is that the show is irrelevant.  It's the king's new clothes, the school-of-what's-happening-now.

Don't get me wrong.  I think it would be a blast to go, but it isn't something, by itself, that I would travel a substantial distance to see, but if I did I'd bring my big ol' soapbox. --Paul

Sophia Walter - Re: James Maroney   4/1/02; 11:09:55 AM (reads: 2000, responses: 0) Okay- I read the article by Roberta Smith and found it incredibly overwhelming. The tone is severe and condescending and superior...because you're reviewing art don't you have to keep in mind that you're also educating- and Roberta Smith seems to be generalizing as well as coming from a chip-on-her-shoulder background...it's in some respects brainwashing? Anyway- the article discussed way too much and there were conflicting ideas. She was criticizing how conceptual art should be over by now and then she was criticizing trustees for not supporting these exhibits enough...and then there was a bit of conservatism on her side as she seemed to be unhappy about the lack of traditional colorful painting and photography. All around it seemed like an overall disdain with conceptual art? Her views about museums- general it seemed...especially for people who don't live in New York...and even if I did- would I go to every gallery that she mentioned in Brooklyn and Queens? How responsible is this for an artswriter...I'd argue not at all. I don't know how I would react to this exhibit...because she hasn't given me a really unbiased description of the place. Isn't journalism about educating and being respectful of the curator's individual opinion? That's ideal...but Roberta Smith's article denies any clear response. Why do you think it got printed? Is the New York times arts section turning into a free-response section? revamping its stuffy reputation? As for what the article vaguely brings up about museums not being appropriate or worthy (?) of modern art...I think that it's interesting...how liberal can people with money be...who are used to supporting good art exhibitions with "real" art- safe things to believe in...but conceptual art. Not many people other than the "artist" can fully appreciate what the art means to the artist...and that's the significance of conceptual art for me. It must be hard for trustees to support conceptual art that seems to in a way be mocking tradition...defying everything the trustees have supported before? I say this all with big question marks, but if I was a millionare, old, trustee of a museum I would feel my money was being wasted on conceptual art. I might question why the conceptual artist wants to have an exhibit in the museum- it's a traditional setting. It's also an educational setting, though, and in this respect the artists can educate the public not with where art is, but where they are? I talked with this conceptual artist Lee Ming Wei last year in my art history class and he said that his inspiration was Duchamp...and so that's one connection to the past...respect for the past. And that's what we're looking for- family trees/connections...so then conceptual art is acceptable. BUT- then we start addressing the art that inspired the conceptual art of Lee Ming Wei and that's Dada...and is Dada really relevant in this day in age- anarchy still popular? I don't know at all...personally I don't think that conceptual art is art, but I think that it's interesting that the people who are doing it are under the impression that it is...and that in their explanations and references to the past they are thinking through very carefully what art is to them...and this is educational and interesting and, I think, worthy of an exhibit...but there's no support from the trsutees (what I think Roberta Smith said) so there lies the problem. uh- what do you think? --Sophia

Barbara Ganley - Re: James Maroney   4/1/02; 12:14:29 PM (reads: 1995, responses: 0)

James and Paul and Hector--

It's all your fault that I'm breaking my own house rules here (no BG on the threaded discussions), but what do I do when I have a near mutiny on my hands?  The class (led in this endeavor by Alex and Sophia) is insisting on going to NYC to see what all the fuss is about at the Whitney.  So instead of heading to the safer environs of North Adams, Massachusetts, it looks as though we'll be heading to the Biennial.  See what you guys have done???  I've got a class with a mind of its own, willing to throw out the carefully planned syllabus and head for the city.  Anybody want to join us?

BG  

Sophia Walter - Re: James Maroney   4/1/02; 8:59:49 PM (reads: 1985, responses: 0) okay- one more thing that crossed my mind after reading this article by Roberta Smith...if a person goes to art school and is formally trained and then, in reaction to this experience along with more personally effective reflection about the time, can their work be respected as art even if it is a concept...is that what makes them a conceptual artist. because we all have concepts...we're coneptual by nature. But its art when a trained therefore trustworthy artist displays concepts. In this respect these concepts in a museum setting are not really isolated, but rather fantastic...proactive, creative responses that, yes- perhaps we all could do...but we don't. --Sophia

Mail This Story
Print-Friendly Version