The Battle Your Teachers Fought For YouClem Greenberg is chainsmoking, but more nervously than usual. He has just punched out a long-haired conceptualist, in the best Cedar Tavern tradition. The young man lies on the ground, groaning.
Other conceptualists arrive. "What did you do to him, man?"
"I said his work was minuh," which is how Clem pronounced "minor." "He hit me, I hit him back, and there he lies, the putz."
"'Minuh'? What are you, the Rule Man?" one of the kids asks.
"No, that's your projection. I just interpret; I've been doing it since the '30s. I can't be blamed for having a cult. Artists won't leave me alone."
"Rule Man! Rule Man!" one of the kids screams. A group of them are now standing around Clem in a menacing circle.
"Will you shut up with that, already? What I do is describe, not prescribe."
"You know who you are, you fascist? You're Nixon, man!"
"NIX-on! NIX-on!" the group chants.
Someone whips out a knife. The kids converge on him. Clem goes down fighting, but he never gets up.
oh my god that's too sad and funny.
My "Greenberg" is an unreliable narrator. In his later years he did, too, prescribe. I just find it comical that a whole generation defines itself almost solely in terms of reacting to Greenberg. They threw out the baby of thoughtful "walking you through a piece" type criticism in favor of theoretical agitprop. Like the Bolsheviks, these new rulers were worse than what they overthrew. Intellectual fascism peaked in the '80s and early '90s and the art world still hasn't recovered. (For example, a transcript of a Dia panel discussion among Sylvia Kolbowski, Barbara Kruger, Dan Graham, and others from that time really captures the flavor of bullying, obtuse one-upmanship.) Dave Hickey tried to set himself in opposition to the new fascists but the problem is he has little of his own to offer. He's a glib reactor without a consistent vision. [edited slightly to be less bullying]
More criticism of the icky Hickey can be found in this long thread (a discussion of those damn critics) and also here (where I ground an earlier ax).
The Demise of Art Criticism, Part 1
So much criticism here; such complacency from the audience at the OCAD panel. But then I do not excuse the panel: Is not the notion of artwriting (one word now) complacency itself before the work of art? I don’t wish to insult all the panelists, now that I can dispense with my moderator function, but criticism can be a cruel business, especially when its definition is at stake. When at the end of the panelists’ presentations on their behalf I pronounced, “The panelists concur, art criticism, at least as a word, is irrelevant,”I myself did not lend my assent. With the disavowal of the word “criticism,”art criticism was not just being relabelled, it was being redefined. Perhaps it was not being redefined as much as rejected, because “artwriting”proposes another function for criticism. Though maybe it was not being rejected either because I do not think--could it be?--the concept of art criticism is understood, which is to say more than that its function is no longer important. Maybe this is why it is so easy to dispense with the word in favour of another more amenable to an audience, which is the aim of this writing, not the art object itself.
What does the disavowal of the word “criticism”mean? To be continued. . .
|
The Battle Your Teachers Fought For You
Clem Greenberg is chainsmoking, but more nervously than usual. He has just punched out a long-haired conceptualist, in the best Cedar Tavern tradition. The young man lies on the ground, groaning.
Other conceptualists arrive. "What did you do to him, man?"
"I said his work was minuh," which is how Clem pronounced "minor." "He hit me, I hit him back, and there he lies, the putz."
"'Minuh'? What are you, the Rule Man?" one of the kids asks.
"No, that's your projection. I just interpret; I've been doing it since the '30s. I can't be blamed for having a cult. Artists won't leave me alone."
"Rule Man! Rule Man!" one of the kids screams. A group of them are now standing around Clem in a menacing circle.
"Will you shut up with that, already? What I do is describe, not prescribe."
"You know who you are, you fascist? You're Nixon, man!"
"NIX-on! NIX-on!" the group chants.
Someone whips out a knife. The kids converge on him. Clem goes down fighting, but he never gets up.
- tom moody 2-27-2004 9:15 pm
oh my god that's too sad and funny.
- sally mckay 2-27-2004 9:25 pm
My "Greenberg" is an unreliable narrator. In his later years he did, too, prescribe. I just find it comical that a whole generation defines itself almost solely in terms of reacting to Greenberg. They threw out the baby of thoughtful "walking you through a piece" type criticism in favor of theoretical agitprop. Like the Bolsheviks, these new rulers were worse than what they overthrew. Intellectual fascism peaked in the '80s and early '90s and the art world still hasn't recovered. (For example, a transcript of a Dia panel discussion among Sylvia Kolbowski, Barbara Kruger, Dan Graham, and others from that time really captures the flavor of bullying, obtuse one-upmanship.) Dave Hickey tried to set himself in opposition to the new fascists but the problem is he has little of his own to offer. He's a glib reactor without a consistent vision. [edited slightly to be less bullying]
- tom moody 2-28-2004 12:42 am
More criticism of the icky Hickey can be found in this long thread (a discussion of those damn critics) and also here (where I ground an earlier ax).
- tom moody 2-28-2004 11:37 pm
The Demise of Art Criticism, Part 1
So much criticism here; such complacency from the audience at the OCAD panel. But then I do not excuse the panel: Is not the notion of artwriting (one word now) complacency itself before the work of art? I don’t wish to insult all the panelists, now that I can dispense with my moderator function, but criticism can be a cruel business, especially when its definition is at stake. When at the end of the panelists’ presentations on their behalf I pronounced, “The panelists concur, art criticism, at least as a word, is irrelevant,”I myself did not lend my assent. With the disavowal of the word “criticism,”art criticism was not just being relabelled, it was being redefined. Perhaps it was not being redefined as much as rejected, because “artwriting”proposes another function for criticism. Though maybe it was not being rejected either because I do not think--could it be?--the concept of art criticism is understood, which is to say more than that its function is no longer important. Maybe this is why it is so easy to dispense with the word in favour of another more amenable to an audience, which is the aim of this writing, not the art object itself.
What does the disavowal of the word “criticism”mean? To be continued. . .
- Philip Monk (guest) 2-29-2004 10:23 pm