Polemics and Appreciations.

I had a friend, he died some years ago, who wrote reviews for New York art magazines all his life. When I first met him, in 1958, he was writing for Art News. His name was Lawrence Campbell[but always Larry]. One of his absolutes was that he would never write a negative review. His taste changed some over many years, and he did write raves of the work of friends, but the majority of his reviews were of artists, not necessarily people he knew, whose work he admired.  There is more of a tradition for that among American literary critics. If I am not getting the name wrong Robert Gorham Davis who was active till about 20 years ago was another such.
But he generally reviewed prose fiction.

Decorum is a word not found much in the art world. Although some of Larry's principles do get carried out out there in the establishment. The art magazines are full, only, with the kind of work which the editors and critics have a feeling for. As someone who has been seeing the Art mags for some 55 years I do have some general comments to make.  The New York Times used to have very exciting weekday and Sunday art pages. This is not so true any more, because somewhere a critical pen has been wielded and the number of reproductions of work which the paper reviews has gone down precipitately.  We all saw Giuliani go foaming at the mouth with the show of some recent Saatchi people in the Brooklyn Museum during his tenure as mayor. Most of the material raved about in the Times might very well get a very strong negative reaction if reproduced, so that the general Times reading public could actually see what the critic was raving about.  So, no one gets to see the stuff. The Sunday page tends to be filler, or, plants for friends of some one on the newspaper[not necessarily among the art critics] and is rarely written by one of their major critics.

Decorum is encouraged by these devices, and ignorance is kept, happily, blissful.

The other week, Kimmelman [who is actually a wonderful writer about pianists and the piano literature] was given the task of reviewing the great Tintoretto show in Vienna. In order to get into the mood, he had to get to a Viennese restaurant[and wine bar] which put him into the mood for looking at those old, and old fashioned paintings.  To see a really great show, he had to get into the mood and the period somehow!! Most of his reviews have had that sort of problem.  He is the Times' number 1 because he is thought to be a good newspaper man, and the times has the idea that all those critical jobs can be handed around to people with that sort of credentials.

I am used to the idea the the old Paul Georges crowd, who were hungry, dressed and acted broke [although they weren't] and used Paul as their critic and psychotherapist, would use any public event to attack other artists violently in speech and loudly in manner. I find it mildly perplexing that someone who supported a wing of the establishment should find it necessary to act like that, too.  It makes me sure that we are all doing right.  Of course the supporters of various parts of the establishment must feel very insecure about the true value of the artists whom they prefer.  The names which have come up most, thus far are Rackstraw Downes, Lucien Freud, Neil Welliver and quite a few others.

Actually I think that it should have been expected in our context, that some artists would take a rethinking of realism as a starting point for a neo-Avant Garde position. There must not be any kind of art which is being made which does not fit into the historical idea of the avant garde.  So some of the people I have already mentioned as well as a number of others fit that bill. 

Unfortunately, I don't think so. There is something about working from the motif which can produce good art, even new good art. The point is that no one can stop learning, adjusting and readjusting to the motif and the canvas and new insights, so that they can produce a nice new and easily graspable neo-avantgarde realism. Skill and intelligence, talent and sensibility are not enough. The artist has to keep being aware of him/herself and recognize when something has happened which requires new developments.  I am talking about constant non-vanguard development and change in the work

I think that it is clear that Stanley's path follows the changing understandings which develop in his paintings and drawings. And all of us know that there is still his sculpture, and figure painting to see, some day. He is a much messier artist than any of the establishment. It is not possible to cut off one idea and say, that's it!! Because each new idea is also in the middle of a step to somewhere else.  This is what new art which is good and new and not avant garde looks like.

Love,
Gabriel