From: shannon stoney (sstoney@pdq.net)
Date: 04/08/02-07:28:32 PM Z
>Judy wrote:
> > ... I found the very interesting thread that I'm sorry I missed
>> in February about good and bad photography. I only bring this up to
>> say that if anyone is still interested in thinking about whether the
>> Emperor has no clothes or not, she might like to peruse the most
>> recent issue of The New Republic, which has a very trenchant (some
>> might say over the top negative) review of the Gerhard Richter show
>> in NYC by Jed Perl, and also a shorter article by him about the
>> exhibit at the Jewish Museum. He addresses a lot of the questions
>> that were raised in the thread on this list and puts it in an art
>> historical context. Good writing, most of which I agree with, even
>> though I have not had a chance to visit the Richter show and have
>> only seen his work in books.
>
>
>Shannon, I think you haven't read Jed Perl carefully enough, because I
>doubt you'd agree with what he's actually saying. You mention "emperor's
>new clothes," meaning, I assume, that we dummies/peasants admire "art
>world" art just to prove we're in the know. But Perl, who despises
>virtually all 20th century art, is poster child for throwing out the baby
>with the bath water, and doesn't understand much of either art or
>photography.
I read it pretty carefully, but i can't really judge the rightness of
his judgement, not having seen the show. Also I didn't know the
whole history of his criticism, having only been reading him in TNR
for a few years. I think I liked the gist of what he was saying
because I am very tired of the philosophy of my art department, where
the only kind of photography that's ok is "media critiques" and
exploration of your own neuroses, preferably sexual. A sort of
poorly understood postmodernism that nobody can actually explain or
defend rules the department, and the teachers use pomo jargon to
beat up students without really understanding how they're
contradicting themselves all the time. I wonder if they've really
read all the theory they seem to be drawing on. I think a lot of it
is just plain silly, but it seems so heavy and intellectual that it
intimidates people; and if you point out any illogic in it, it's like
saying, "The Emperor has no clothes." Or if you point out that some
of the rather empty art that is held up as examples for us to follow
is, well, empty, then you are likewise proclaiming the emperor to
have no clothes.
I actually think that this whole trend is on the way out, but some
people are still stuck in the early nineties.
I was a little shocked by the opening line of this review: "Gerhard
Richter is a bullshit artist masquerading as a painter." I was
surprised the editors let that one by. I think it kind of undermined
whatever argument Perl was trying to make, because it made it seem as
if he had a personal vendetta against Richter.
However I have read a lot of positive stuff about contemporary art by
Perl in the last few years. I don't think he hates all of it.
--shannon
--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 05/01/02-11:43:29 AM Z CST