October 10, 2013

Scolding artists, Saltz declares painting nearly dead


Scolding artists on Vulture today, Jerry Saltz reports that he is almost ready to declare painting dead. His rant reminds me of an old art professor who would read the whole class the riot act for not working hard enough, and then double back to assure his favorite students that he didn't mean them. Here's an excerpt:
Call it Neo-Mannerism. We all know it. That ever-expanding assembly of anemically boring, totally safe artistic clich├ęs squeezing the life out of the art world right now....

Saltz continues: 
Scads of artists are trying to be junior postmodernists. A phalanx of work has appeared that might be called "Modest Abstraction" or "MFA See, MFA Do." It's everywhere, and it all looks the same. In sculpture there's Anarchy Lite. Those post-minimalist formal arrangements of clunky stuff, sticks, planks, bent metal, wood boxes, fabric, old furniture, concrete things, and whatnot leaned, stacked, stuck, piled, or dispersed around a clean white gallery. There's usually a subtext about wastefulness, sustainability, politics, urbanism, or art history. That history is almost always straight out of sixties and seventies Artforum magazines or the syllabi of academic teachers who've scared their students into being pleasingly meek, imitative, and ordinary.
Looking at 2-D work, I'm this close to that old Carter-administration-era croak of "Painting is dead." Again. Nowadays we see endless arrays of decorous, medium-size, handsome, harmless paintings. It's rendered mainly in black, white, gray, or, more recently, violet or blue. Much of it entails transfer techniques, silkscreening, stenciling, assemblage, collage, a little spray painting or scraping and the like....Read more.
Hmm....I wonder whom, specifically, he has in mind. Perhaps he should pen some critical reviews of their shows instead of posting a group scold.

 [Image at top: Josh Smith @Luring Augustine, selected by Two Coats of Paint]

Related posts:
A death exaggerated (2013)
Quote of the Day: Jerry Saltz (2012)
Critic on critic: Jerry Saltz tells DC blogger to get a grip (2009)
 
 

19 comments:

Bad link. Also, he's full of it.

right on, Sharon. Completely empty criticism because there is no specific artists or artworks mentioned, just a rant...

Makes me want to paint. Don't mind if I do. Is JS bitterly realizing painting will outlive him?

Makes me want to paint. Don't mind if I do. Is JS bitterly realizing painting will outlive him?

I can definitely see where he's coming from, but without any specifics - his criticism has no teeth and can be taken with a grain of sand. What MFA programs is he talking about? Yale, Columbia, VCU, SAIC, VCU? Who are the specific artists whom he feels typify this so called Neo-mannerism. Honestly I think this kind of generalized non-specific criticism needs to be criticized more than anything else. Give us some concrete thoughts and some evidence Jerry!

Jerry is a failed painter so he finds it difficult to deal with failure, he relates to it too strongly. He has always backed established winners.He is funny and a good politician. Jerry is not a critic he is a reporter like on the ET of the art world.

For anyone who looks at a lot of art, especially a generous amount of BA and MFA art, this "generalized" critique makes a lot of sense. I can understand the fear it instills in artists, who want concrete evidence of the criticized works, and he might be saying this in an an insensitive manner, but there is some serious value in it.

Didn't he 'kill' art criticism with reality TV? Ha, ha. Seriously though, Jerry Saltz lacks integrity, runs when challenged, apparently craves BBC...erm... Jay-Z, and most likely would not be in the position he is in today had it not been for his wife.

Does he bother to look beyond the big art galleries and fairs? NO. Like most critics today... he form of criticism is masturbatory -- stroking off the power players.

I agree with Saltz about art trends produced by certain MFA programs. (Look at any issue of New American Paintings for evidence of these.) But, yes, it would be nice to have been given particular examples. Trends do not kill an art form, however, and making statements about the death of painting is like talking about the death of theater or the death of rock music. It's an outdated line of thinking in itself.

Saltz can't declare anything. All he can do is try for himself to overcome whatever obstacles to making compelling discursive paintings he has created in his head.

Saltz writes here about painting, and new, "leading edge painting" painting of a particular kind that clearly exists in NYC. I see it too in the galleries. It is the endless shadow of Duchamp that falls over US art and painting. He does name the practitioners in this and the recent NYMagazine piece if you look. And the pictures here. Josh Smith, Chris Wool, Guyton et all. Also his writing style is for the weekly mags that you actually have to pay for, which makes it different in its own way.

What is straight downward disturbing within the context of Jerry Saltz' article and the reactions toward his piece, is the absence of a critical debate. You do not have to agree with Saltz and you can ask him to be more specific in regard to individual artists who practice "Neo-Mannerism." But any kind of in-depth conversation becomes impossible if his opinion is declared a rant - something not to be considered seriously as it stands for. In the eyes of many readers, he appears merely as a bloated ego. The question here should be: is there a grain of truth in Saltz's criticism? I think there is. Jerry Saltz writes about a broad phenomenon, not individual artists that he intends to blame. What he seems to point out is a mode of art making that has spread among a predominantly younger and up-coming generation of artists. One of your commentators - LM Smith - mentions the publication New American Paintings and he/she is right. The scope of the paintings featured in their issues is frighteningly narrow and thereby safe.

There is a lack of critical reviews on contemporary art. When did you read a critical review of an art show lately? And I do not mean Ken Johnson who often ends up putting his foot in his mouth. Think of Art in America: one positive review following another. Think of Art Forum. Same situation. Think of the many artist-run blogs that promote their friends or write about art that looks like their own. They are outlets of art appreciation, rather than art criticism. How did this happen? Why do people shy away from discussing different points of view? And what do we do to change this?

This comment has been removed by the author.

You can blame the Whitney with its Biennials and the New Museum with their most influential show Unmonumental, but the real problem is that artists are too interested in engaging the status quo and being a part of "the discourse". Artists and particularly Painters need to find where their intentions are - why are they even makign the work that they are making and why are they satisfied only talking to themselves? Personally, I would hate to be termed a "Casualist" or a "Neo-Mannerist" Whatever you say about it, Saltz definitely has a point - I hope he continues to write about this topic and goes into greater detail!

I don't know if I read the writing so much as a scold. In fact, I'm not sure I took this as attacking work as particular and personal as the work you make and champion? Maybe I am off? But I am certainly interested. And glad to see so many people talking about painting, even if they do bring up the phony death of painting ghouls to do it.

Interesting article and I completely disagree painting is not a dying art.

I think JS's whole point here is to be general. His overall impression of sameness, blandness and "safe" efforts makes perfect sense. Hopefully, he's not talking about you, right?
He's also touching on a distinction of work that is made by hand vs. the work that is mere assemblage, and an inherent lack of personality to the latter.
Don't kill the messenger.

It' s amusing that even the brightest of us still retain entitlement to the silliest of comments. Does Mr. Saltz truly believe that he maintains aesthetic intuition above critics of the past? You know, those self-absorbed souls who thought the impressionists needed more formal training, or that Stravinsky's 'Rite of Spring' was tonal degradation. History is filled with this thoughtless ignorance. The super objectivity maintained by Mr. Saltz, of course, allow him the ability to critique without bias... as if the rigors of today's aesthetics will define the future's! As painters, I think we all know how difficult it is to take a step forward. We judge with what we know and reject most of what we don't. Comfort zones are albatrosses... even to the most creative of us. Maybe Santa will gift Mr. Saltz a flute, or a box of pastels.