US critics are gearing up for the Rauschenberg retrospective, about to open in New York. Rauschenberg’s lofty reputation doesn’t stop this writer attacking both him and his work. Rauschenberg lacked discipline, was a “showman”, merely a “creative personality-at-large in the arts. Didn’t it ever occur to him that the search for perfection, however quixotic, is among the greatest adventures?” Phew!
Suspending kilometers of tangled white neon lighting in an art gallery will certainly pull a crowd – but how should such an installation be explained? The artist’s ambition was to create “white neon drawings in space” that induce a “transformative mood. If anything it’s a … place for reverie on the transference of energy”. In case that’s not clear the artist adds: “[my work is] a rendezvous of question marks” An excellent video is here.
Where did IKEA’s design aesthetic come from? A London exhibition suggests much credit belongs to Josef Frank, from whose work the concept of Swedish Modern evolved. Although also an accomplished watercolorist, his textile furniture and designs clearly get star billing in this show. An excellent discussion of Swedish Modern design is here and images of Frank’s textile designs here.
Acconci’s renown came particularly from an eight year period of work up to 1976. His performance art pieces were odd – and thought provoking. Moving on to architecture (which he preferred) he said “What I never wanted in art … was viewers … I wanted an interaction.” One critic’s summation – “one of the most unusual, superb, and trailblazing careers in postwar American art.” A background video (11 min) is here.
Hogarth is remembered for his satirical drawings. However, acclaimed new research shows that he was also “one of the finest painters the country [England] ever produced.” Will this enhance his modern reputation? Maybe, maybe not. His drawings elevated visual satire to a level still appreciated today. Further, by creating suites of related scenes, he introduced a new genre of enduring popularity – cartoons.
Image: Tate
In the 1940’s Montreal was the centre of visual art in Canada. A notable artist at the time was Francoise Sullivan who, then and now, champions abstraction as central to art. At 93, Sullivan fully deserves the accolade “doyenne of Canadian art”. “Her resolve to continually move forward is truly remarkable. Unlike so many other [old] artists … Francoise Sullivan seems ageless”.
Image: Corkin Gallery
On arriving in Paris a young Brancusi tried working in Rodin’s studio but quickly left. “Nothing grows under big trees”, he said. Robert Hughes speculates that Brancusi’s meticulously polished surfaces nonetheless show what he had learned from the master – “the importance of the sculptural skin as an expressive envelope”. The embedded video is a nice complement to the linked essay.
Male artists dominate MoMA’s permanent collection. In contrast its latest show features exclusively women artists. So, is gender relevant to artistic greatness? Perhaps yes: “[A]rt by women possesses a feminine essence that makes it incomparable with art by men”. Another critic goes further: “work by women … was the major inventive force propelling and shaping late-20th-century art.” Wow!
Travelling in Europe as an undergrad Hendricks fell in love with the Great Masters. This flavours his emotionally resonant portraits of well-dressed black figures which have made him a “pillar of postmodern portraiture”. Hendricks denied his art had a political motivation. “I’m just trying to do the best painting of the individuals who have piqued my curiosity and made me want to paint them.” An excellent video (4 min) is here.
The challenges of being an artist are legion. There is shortage of money, self-doubt, all-consuming envy. Perhaps most difficult of all is the honest judgement of one’s inner circle. “[My wife] came into my office and started looking [at my work]. For a long time. One by one. Studying, not saying a word. After a while she turned to me and said, “They’re okay.” Stricken, I said, “Okay?! What do you mean okay?”
Irving Penn arrived at photography after trying unsuccessfully to be a painter. Once hired by Vogue his signature style quickly emerged – striving for “simplification and elimination” and obsessive attention to detail. Add to this, of course, an ability to see an image others couldn’t. He said “Whatever the photograph … battlefield … Hollywood celebrity … images to sell soap – all of them are equally important.” More images are here.
Turner and Constable have been rivals going on 200 years. Recently, Turner has had the better of the debate. But a new exhibition of Constable’s coastal landscapes shows a “daring and rather more rebellious side to the sometimes maligned icon. [It hints] that Turner wasn’t the only one with an eye for innovation and the Romantic”. More images are here.
One critic observes that “calling Peter Voulkos a ceramicist is a bit like calling Jimi Hendrix a guitarist”. Having become an “absolute master of wheel-thrown vessels”, a summer teaching job led him to abruptly switch to ceramic abstract sculptures. Over the next 15 years he channeled influences as diverse as Picasso and abstract expressionism to “redefine his medium and transform the craft into fine art”.
The richest 1% of Sotheby’s clients buy as much art as the remaining 99%. Such a concentration of buying power is luring large art advisers into greater specialization. Besides advising, some are now investing as principals – just like investment banks. Other agents may specialize in managing artists – a bit like sports stars. But if star artists like this emerging model, “what remains for the traditional dealer? “