Tyler Green
Art-focused Journalism by Tyler Green

Tyler Green Modern Art Notes

Archive for December, 2010

MAN’s 2010 top ten list

In no particular order:

1.) “Matisse: Radical Invention, 1913-1917,” at the Museum of Modern Art. The subtitle could have been “the Juan Gris years.” (On MAN: Part one, two.) [Image: Matisse, Bowl of Apples on a Table, 1916, collection of the Chrysler Museum of Art.]

2.) “Hard Targets” at the Wexner Center for the Arts. Two of the year’s strongest shows both addressed how artists address homosexuality in contexts in which gays and lesbians are/were not always welcome. (See No. 4.) Curator Christopher Bedford installed versions of this show at several venues. By the Wexner hang, he nailed it. (On MAN: Part one, two, three.)

3.) “Steve Roden: In Between,” a 20-year survey at the Armory Center for the Arts in Pasadena, Calif. Roden is almost certainly the best artist in America who has never had a show had only one show in New York. This mini-retro, organized by former LACMA curator Howard Fox, should have convinced Easterners to get on board. (On MAN: Next week.) [Image below, left: Roden, fall after moons fall after..., 2008.]

4.)  “Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture” at the National Portrait Gallery. I hope that the Smithsonian’s failure to stand up to bigots doesn’t cause us to forget how good this show is. It was a couple major Rauschenbergs and a Catherine Opie self-portrait or two away from being a clear No. 1. (On MAN: Part one, two, three.)

5.) “In the Tower: Mark Rothko” at the National Gallery of Art. The work requires a quiet, evenly lit installation — and NGA curator Harry Cooper provided one. (On MAN.)

6.) “Helios: Eadweard Muybridge in a Time of Change” at the Corcoran Gallery of Art. Muybridge is one of America’s most innovative artists, but somehow he’d never been the subject of a retrospective until Corcoran curator Philip Brookman created this show. It was a doozy; thorough and jaw-dropping, it also created a controversy when a MAN Q&A with former Getty Museum curator Weston Naef revealed serious questions about whether Muybridge actually made the early work traditionally attributed to him. (On MAN: Introduction to MAN’s Q&A with Naef, complete with links to the entire series.)

7.) “Willem de Kooning: The Painter’s Materials,” by Susan F. Lake. Who’da thunk that the best art book of the year would be the result of technical analysis by a conservator? (Certainly not Lake’s ‘home museum,’ the Hirshhorn, which all but ignored the book’s publication.) (On MAN: Part one, two.)

8.) E Pluribus Unum,” by Fred Wilson (proposed, at right). The most thoughtful work of public art proposed in years, Wilson’s sculpture kicked off a city-wide conversation from which art and artists too often shy away. Wilson’s engagement with the residents of Indianapolis should be a model for other artists. Look for an update on MAN soon. (On MAN: Introducing the project, talking with Wilson, talking with funder Brian Payne.)

9.) “West and West: Reimagining the Great Plains,” by Joe Deal, in book form and at Robert Mann Gallery. One of America’s most underrated synthesizers of landscape, Deal made important work up until his death this year. He was 63. (On MAN.)

10.) The museums who responded to Smithsonian secretary G. Wayne Clough’s censorship of “Hide/Seek” by installing David Wojnarowicz’s works in solidarity with the National Portrait Gallery, the show’s curators and the artist. Their standing with art, an artist and art historians was a display of spirited support that made the Warhol and Mapplethorpe foundations look silly and ineffectual. Maybe art museums learned something from 1989 after all.

Related: Previous MAN year-end top-ten lists: 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004.

Can we get to $1,000 today?

As a result of an unusually busy December news cycle, I’ve posted much less about MAN’s annual DonorsChoose.org fundraising drive this year than I have in previous years. Still, MAN readers have given $500 $850 $950 to the projects I’ve promoted here, money that has helped 525 students have art as part of their education. All of the projects on MAN’s project page help put art education in public schools. Most of them support America’s poorest schools.

We’re pretty close to fulfilling the two projects on our donor page, so I’ll add more throughout the day. Here’s one of the projects up now:

“I paint self-portraits because I am so often alone, because I am the person I know best,” Frida Kahlo said. Self-portraits are a cornerstone for many artists and one of the hardest things to draw. To ease my 8th graders fears, students will combine their image with a creature, a surrealist style. My students are exceptional!! They come from a violent, gang ridden inner city area in California, yet they seem to look beyond that environment. We are a public school with approximately 2,000 students, therefore, it is very crowded and tensions seem high often. Yet, my students come to my advanced art class eager to learn and try new things.

Click here to see this project and click here to see MAN’s project/giving page. Thanks for your support!!

P.S. I’m having a hard time sending ‘thank yous’ to donors this year because DonorsChoose doesn’t seem to be letting me see your email addresses. (It’s also possible I’m tech-stupid, but I really can’t find…) I’m terribly sorry about that and I’m trying to find something I can do about it. As an aside, a special thanks to the anonymous donor who gave in honor of David Wojnarowicz.

Weekend roundup

  • If you missed Philip Kennicott’s Friday essay in the Washington Post, don’t. He calls for Smithsonian secretary G. Wayne Clough to resign. One of Kennicott’s reasons: Clough’s lack of leadership as demonstrated through his bizarre continued silence, about which I’ve also complained.
  • Holland Cotter adds little on the Mark Bradford retrospective, now at the ICA Boston. MAN’s review: Part one, Bradford’s Crow [above right], part three. (Sidenote: No 2010 review generated more email — pro and con — than the first part of what I wrote about Bradford.)
  • The San Francisco Chronicle’s Kenneth Baker offers some 2010 highlights and a top 10 list. (MAN’s top 10 runs later this week.)
  • In the St. Louis Beacon, Bob Duffy looks at Joe Jones (on view now at the St. Louis Art Museum) and his place in Missouri’s history.
  • The Freep’s Mark Stryker is right: Detroit had a big year in contemporary art.
  • This is great: Chronicle architecture critic slams the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco for banning sketching in exhibitions. Under its current leadership, the de Young is a theme park-style turnstiler, more interested in hosting glitzy rental shows than in enabling and promoting research and scholarship or offering meaningful experiences with art. King’s essay is a reminder that when a museum thinks engagement is secondary to traffic, it has abandoned mission for mercantilism.

Kennicott: Smithsonian’s Clough should resign

In the Washington Post, Philip Kennicott drops the hammer on Smithsonian secretary G. Wayne Clough: “[T]he best option for undoing the damage remains the resignation of the man who made the decision.” After calling for Clough’s resignation, Kennicott suggests that AA Bronson’s Felix, June 5, 1994 come out of the exhibition, pronto. A must-read. (I’m delighted to see that Kennicott agrees that Clough’s continued silence on all this is a reason for the American public to have no confidence in his leadership.)

This is Kennicott’s second outstanding essay on the Smithsonian fiasco. Here’s his first piece, on David Wojnarowicz’s A Fire in My Belly. (Kennicott wrote this blog post too.) Someone’s Pulitzer Prize portfolio is rounding into form rather nicely.

Pre-Christmas links

  • In TBD, Maura Judkis reports that “Hide/Seek” co-curator Jonathan Katz has received an abundance of anti-Semitic email. (Just in case you didn’t think bigotry of all kinds was at the root of this thing. It’s that kind of bigotry that Smithsonian Secretary G. Wayne Clough bowed to and further enabled.) Judkis also smartly writes that it’s important to see what comes next, exhibitions and scholarship-wise.
  • For more than a decade Doug Harvey has been one of America’s top art critics. The LA Weekly has dismissed him, bizarrely claiming that he’s “too academic,” reports Jori Finkel. No, seriously. Doug Harvey. Too academic. If Doug Harvey is too academic, I’m a Penguins fan.
  • Suggestion: The Getty’s Iris blog would be smart to make Harvey a critic-in-residence before-and-during the Getty’s Pacific Standard Time exhibapalooza.
  • Jonathan Jones asks if Bellini is underrated and if Bellini was Leonardo’s equal?
  • I don’t understand a word of this, but I think I agree with it.
  • Philip Kennicott, Washington’s top culture critic, examines David Wojnarowicz in the context of… Norman Rockwell? One little quibble: Kennicott says that Rockwell has been popular. Not exactly. A Smithsonian American Art Museum official told me earlier this week that the show has been a big attendance disappointment. [Update: SAAM notes that Rockwell is up 39% in attendance over the year-ago exhibition(s). Rockwell has an unusually large July-to-January window making show-to-show comparison's difficult, but last fall/winter the museum showed a William T. Wiley retrospective.]
  • Earlier this year I complained that the New Topographics survey currently at SFMOMA is a major letdown. Here’s another example of why that show is such a missed opportunity: It turns out the famed “New Topos” exhibit may not have been the first examination of, well, New Topos photography. Fascinating stuff.
  • LACMA’s got holiday stockings!
  • Your guide to last-minute Christmas books.
  • There is serious awesomeness on MAN’s new Tumblr 3rd of May today. And we’re down to the last couple days of my Advent Calendar!

Whitney’s Weinberg silent on unusual WhiBi plan

On Nov. 19 the Whitney Museum of American Art made an unusual announcement: It was selecting a dealer, Jay Sanders, to co-curate the next Whitney Biennial. The Whitney leaked the story to the New York Times (which promptly reported it inaccurately). That same day, MAN filed a routine request for a Q&A with director Adam Weinberg.

Today, 32 days after my inquiry, the Whitney finally responded: The museum told me that Weinberg will not speak with MAN about the subject. To the best of my knowledge, he has not spoken with anyone about it. (Readers?) The museum referred me to last month’s press release, which is mostly notable for neither quoting nor mentioning the museum’s director.

This is all pretty unusual. Typically museum directors are pleased to discuss their decisions. Typically they are at least mentioned in press releases announcing the major decisions made at their museums. (True: I am assuming the Whitney’s director was involved in this decision.) Furthermore, MAN has a long history of giving directors more space than any other outlet for the discussion of meaty topics: In just the last year or so I’ve welcomed Smithsonian American Art Museum director Elizabeth Broun, New Museum director Lisa Phillips and MOCA director Jeffrey Deitch on to MAN to discuss controversial topics. Each has received as much space as they wanted to answer questions about the news of the day. Often museums themselves promote MAN Q&As with their directors as full, fair airings of the institution’s point of view.

I continue think that the Whitney’s hiring of Sanders is newsworthy. (So did the New York Times, for that matter.) I think that art lovers deserve to hear about the unusual direction the museum is taking from the presumptive decision-maker himself. What does the hiring of Sanders say about the Whitney’s relationship with the commercial art market — and New York’s contemporary art market in particular? More broadly, what does the Whitney’s WhiBi direction say about contemporary art, artists and their relation to the market?

Is the idea of an institution having curators of contemporary art old-fashioned? Are they necessary? Traditionally one reason we imbue an art museum with authority is because its decision-making is independent from outside forces, such as commercial forces. Are art museums that show contemporary art so engaged with the art market that independence is no longer extant, relevant or important? What does a dealer bring to a show that an art historian doesn’t? Or vice-versa?

As for answers? Well, we’re all still waiting.

The second Smithsonian/Wojnarowicz scandal

What would happen if the head of a federal government agency took a controversial action, was not truthful about it, and then went into hiding and refused to speak with the public, journalists, or even his own staff? That’s exactly what’s happening in the Smithsonian/David Wojnarowicz fiasco, and yet because of the unusual dynamics of the situation — Censorship! Bigoted right-wingers! — that part of this story has been pretty much ignored. It’s time to focus on it.

In order to understand this scandal-within-a-scandal, let’s look back at how the Smithsonian fiasco developed: On Nov. 30, Wojnarowicz’s A Fire in My Belly was removed from the National Portrait Gallery exhibition “Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture.” The Smithsonian presented the story thus: The call to remove the work was made by NPG director Martin Sullivan and Smithsonian undersecretary for art, history and culture Richard Kurin in association with exhibition co-curator David C. Ward. That’s how Blake Gopnik reported the story in an (excellent) Nov. 30 essay in the Post. That’s how the Post’s Jackie Trescott reported the story for Dec. 1’s paper. The Washington CityPaper’s Kriston Capps reported the story the same way. (I can’t find a Nov. 30 press release, but the language Trescott and Capps use is so similar that there must have been some kind of official communication I did not receive and that is not on the Smithsonian’s website.)  Trescott, Gopnik and Capps are blameless: They reported the the story the Smithsonian told. They had no reason to believe the Smithsonian was being untruthful.

Then on the afternoon of Dec. 1 we found out that the Smithsonian’s story was one big fib: It turns out that it wasn’t Sullivan and Kurin who had yanked the video but the Smithsonian’s top official, secretary G. Wayne Clough [above]. That news broke at 3:30 in the afternoon. A few hours later Clough sent an email to Smithsonian staff confirming that story and taking personal responsibility for censoring “Hide/Seek.” Clough’s email was a tacit admission that the Smithsonian’s initial story about the Wojnarowicz was false. However, Clough neither explained the Smithsonian’s untruth — a fib which conveniently delegated responsibility for censoring artwork to lesser Smithsonian officials — nor apologized for it.

He still hasn’t. In fact, since the story began developing three weeks ago, Clough has yet to say one word about his censorship of one of our nation’s museums. He has yet to speak publicly. He has yet to take questions from journalists. So far as I know, he has yet to hold a public forum or any other kind of event with the staff of Smithsonian art museums (plenty of whom email me nearly every day to express their anger and frustration at the harm the Smithsonian’s boss has done to their credibility). [Update, Wednesday morning: A MAN commenter says Clough has now done an event with Smithsonian staff. Working on learning more.]

The Smithsonian received $761 million from American taxpayers last year, a sum that covers about two-thirds of the institution’s budget. It is entirely unacceptable for a quasi-federal institution to be untruthful with the American public about how a controversial decision was made (and who made it) and for the head of that institution then to refuse to speak publicly about that decision.

Clough should stop hiding from the American public. He must  publicly explain the institution’s fib and apologize for it. He must explain his decision to pull the Wojnarowicz. (Of course, he should apologize for that too.) He should take questions from journalists. He should do all of this immediately. Clough’s continued silence is damaging the institution he leads.

Reminder: 3rd of May, Advent Calendar

If you haven’t checked out my two new Tumblrs, take a look at 3rd of May and Tyler Green’s Advent Calendar. Both were designed by the killer tech-team here at Artinfo. Click on the ‘about’ link at each site to learn more!

Bronson: I have legal right to remove my work

In an email sent today to National Portrait Gallery director Martin Sullivan and carbon-copied to the show’s curators, the director of the National Gallery of Canada, MAN and to other journalists, artist AA Bronson asserts that he has the legal right to remove his Felix, June 5, 1994 [right] from “Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture,” which is on view at the NPG. (The piece is in the collection of the NGC.) For much of the last week Bronson has been trying to remove it as a protest against the Smithsonian Institution’s deletion of David Wojnarowicz’s A Fire in My Belly from the exhibition.

Here’s Bronson’s email, in its entirety:

My lawyer suggests that, according to my moral rights under copyright law in both Canada and the USA, I have the right to withdraw my work from Hide/Seek. Please remove my work from the exhibition immediately.

The NPG told MAN last week that it would not remove the work. Prior to that announcement, I did a Q&A with Bronson.

I have asked the NPG for comment on Bronson’s latest email. I will update this post as events warrant.

UPDATE: The NPG told Kate Taylor at the NYT that it would not take down the work.

UPDATE2: The NPG and SI have put out a press release saying the work stays up. The press release also says that: “The Portrait Gallery has invited Bronson to make a formal statement of his views, which would be installed next to his work for visitors to see, together with other public comments… Bronson has been invited to be a speaker at a symposium on “Hide/Seek” at the Portrait Gallery scheduled for Jan. 29, 2011; details of the symposium’s schedule will be announced at a later time.”

UPDATE3: Last night Bronson replied via an email addressed to me and sent to to the NPG, NGC, assorted journalists and curators: “Thanks for the copy of this press release… the National Portrait Gallery did not send it to me. They also have never sent me the catalog to the exhibition.

Martin Sullivan has invited me to participate in a panel discussion at the NPG. However, I will be installing my retrospective exhibition “Haute Glamour: General Idea” at the Musée d’art moderne de la ville de Paris at that time, and will be out of the country. My exhibition in Paris opens February 10th.”

Ten(ish) books to give and want this Xmas

1.) The most beautiful art book of the year is the Chinati Foundation’s catalogue of its collection and detailing of its history. If you’ve never been to west Texas, 15 minutes with this book will have you clicking to southwest.com for plane tickets. Pair it with David Raskin’s new Donald Judd, monograph, the first to be published since Judd’s Tate retrospective. Raskin’s book is extra-valuable because Judd monographs/etc. are astonishingly rare.

2.) The most important exhibition of 2010 was the National Portrait Gallery’s “Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture.” Even before the Smithsonian-created fiasco around the show blew up, the Jonathan Katz/David C. Ward-penned catalogue was a must-own. Lost in the hullabaloo kicked up by the Smithsonian’s removal of a David Wojnarowicz video is this key point: For years other museums could have done this show. They didn’t and the NPG did. If you want to support the show and the scholars behind it,  buy the catalogue.

3.) Another of the year’s best catalogues is the Walker Art Center’s Siri Engberg-edited Alec Soth exhibition catalogue. Look for a review of it on MAN as soon as news stories quiet down a bit. (Tip: The cover is a gem. It features Soth’s address, phone number and email address.)

4.) Published late last year, Linda Gordon’s Bancroft Prize-winning biography of photographer and activist Dorothea Lange belongs on the top shelf of artist biographies. Lange lived an amazing life and cared passionately about America and its most ignored. At a time when the market often motivates artists more than their hearts or minds do, Gordon’s book is a reminder of how an artist can impact the world around her.

5.) Also published late last year: Mark Lamster’s look at how painter Peter Paul Rubens functioned as diplomat Peter Paul Rubens. Consider it proof that to buttonhole artists — then or now — as actors on just one stage is a mistake.

6.) In recent years there have been more must-own books published about Henri Matisse than about any other artist of the first half of the 20th century. The latest is the John Elderfield/Stephanie D’Alessandro catalogue of Matisse’s activity during and around World War I.

7.) The 19th-century’s newest artistic medium was photography and the most important 19thC American photography was done in the newest part of the country: The West. Philip Brookman’s Eadweard Muybridge catalogue is the first career-length look at the artist’s oeuvre. It kicked off an attribution controversy and is a must-own. Toby Jurovics’ examination of the long-overlooked survey photography of the mysterious Timothy O’Sullivan reveals that O’Sullivan initiated many of the ways in which artists still examine the West. Speaking of which: The exhibition was a disappointment, but the Britt Salvesen-edited catalogue for “The New Topographics” redux is a serious achievement. The quietest wonderful book on the West published this year was the late Joe Deal’s “West and West,” which find rich detail in the overlooked middle West. (I reviewed it here.)

8.) The year’s best book on the nuts-and-bolts of how a painting is built was Hirshhorn conservator Susan Lake’s technical-but-accessible examination of Willem de Kooning. (I reviewed it here and here.)

9.) Another small-but-rich treasure is Metropolitan Museum of Art curator Keith Christiansen’s book on Andrea Mantegna, a Renaissance master who is often overlooked in the U.S. It’s a page-turner — and not just because it’s wonderfully illustrated.

10.) This year former President George W. Bush admitted to personally authorizing torture, a violation of U.S. and international law. His far-too-proud confession sent me back to Nancy Spero’s Torture of Women, made accessible in book form this year. (Tip of the cap to the Pompidou, which is showing a Spero retrospective.)