Comments on: Embattled Critic: Where Angels Fear To Tread

By: Suzi Evalenko

Suzi Evalenko — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 07:11:07 +0000

I’ve read Ken Johnson’s two reviews under discussion and, now, a slew of commentary on them. I did not find either review intentionally dismissive of the artists in these shows. I agree the language could have been clearer. It seems to me that it is high time to eschew consideration and comparative assessment of artists as a class ( African Americans, women etc.) vis a vis other groups of artists. And perhaps it is time to stop creating exhibitions bound together nominally and textually by a common identity, unless that identity is culturally integral to the art itself. I fully appreciate the rationale for the creation of museums like the National Museum of Women in the Arts but cannot shake the sense that even the most revered artists in its collection are diminished by a sotto voce declaration that “they are every bit as good as male artists hanging elsewhere.” That is surely true and, as surely, irrelevant, as a matter of art quality. The preferences of the art ‘deciders, wherever they wield their power, are certainly worthy of discussion and the conversation now underway is certainly thought-provoking. But a petition to have Johnson cashiered borders on the laughable….and the dangerous. Have we arrived at the point where art critics must toe some politically-correct line (defined by 1500 petition-signers?), or shy away from expressing an opinion because someone else might characterize it as politically correct? When we get ‘there’, the ballgame is over.

By: Elisa Jensen

Elisa Jensen — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 03:51:05 +0000

Still finding that phrase ” the kind of work that women tend to make” so very irksome. Perhaps I’ll get over it soon, but frankly, it is fuel for the fire and more of the same old. Nothing better to get your blood boiling in the studio – thanks for that ken!

By: zuppardi

zuppardi — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 03:29:00 +0000

Knowing zilch about Johnson’s “problem”, I want to say:
This is quite an extraordinary event, yet one waiting for its critical mass to occur.
Simply put but historically sound is the following-
There have always been many artists of color or “gender” who have been dismissed simply because the times they were in refused them for being “atypical”. I personally knew several of color in the 1960’s who admired modernism as much as the “white man” and were dismissed for it. All their heart and soul dismissed for reasons of “marketplace unity”. It hurt them quite deeply.
I knew women artists who suffered for different reasons. Women who prospered temporarily, but rejected the reasons. Women who said I don’t want to be shown by gender, but I’ll sure as hell take the opportunity. “The sausages had it, now I want it.”
Listen up!
As I have said many times before- faculties are teaching to promote the agenda of their own college years and all it’s ornamentation. Ornamentation passing as theory. It’s Cirque De Soliel, not the stinky reality of farting circus clowns.
End this illustrative self-defining crap and a new reality will squirt free.
One that allows for talent over marketing.
Illustration passing for creativity has subjugated contemporary art since art as a business became the rule.
Best intentions get out of hand, and when $$$$$ is involved-good freakin’ luck, “art”.
When I was a kid “Art” was a special thing. And when I was a kid I didn’t know dick about “Art”.