<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Malcolm| Janet &#8211; artcritical</title>
	<atom:link href="https://artcritical.com/tag/janet-malcolm/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://artcritical.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2017 17:56:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=5.5.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Janet Malcolm: “Burdock”  at Lori Bookstein Fine Art</title>
		<link>https://artcritical.com/2008/10/01/joe-fyfe-on-janet-malcolm/</link>
					<comments>https://artcritical.com/2008/10/01/joe-fyfe-on-janet-malcolm/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joe Fyfe]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:30:52 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Exhibitions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Avedon | Richard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Davey| Moyra]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lori Bookstein Fine Art]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Malcolm| Janet]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.artcritical.com/?p=71636</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Janet Malcolm at Lori Bookstein Fine Art</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://artcritical.com/2008/10/01/joe-fyfe-on-janet-malcolm/">Janet Malcolm: “Burdock”  at Lori Bookstein Fine Art</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://artcritical.com">artcritical</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;">Janet Malcolm: “Burdock”  at Lori Bookstein Fine Art</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;">September 9 to October 11, 2008<br />
37 West 57th Street, 3rd floor</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;">New York City, 212 750 0949</span></p>
<figure id="attachment_71638" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-71638" style="width: 267px" class="wp-caption alignleft"><a href="https://www.artcritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Janet-Malcolm-33-1.jpg" rel="attachment wp-att-71638"><img loading="lazy" class="size-full wp-image-71638" src="https://www.artcritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Janet-Malcolm-33-1.jpg" alt="Janet Malcolm, Burdock No. 33 and (right) Burdock No. 1, both 2005-07. Iris prints, 20 x 13 inches each. Courtesy Lori Bookstein Fine Art" width="267" height="400" /></a><figcaption id="caption-attachment-71638" class="wp-caption-text">Janet Malcolm, Burdock No. 33 and (right) Burdock No. 1, both 2005-07. Iris prints, 20 x 13 inches each. Courtesy Lori Bookstein Fine Art</figcaption></figure>
<p><a href="https://www.artcritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Janet-Malcolm-1-1.jpg" rel="attachment wp-att-71637"><img loading="lazy" class="alignleft size-full wp-image-71637" src="https://www.artcritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Janet-Malcolm-1-1.jpg" alt="Janet-Malcolm-1" width="265" height="400" /></a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;">Janet Malcolm, who is best known for her sober and incisive writerly persona, and who has had previous exhibitions of collages at Lori Bookstein and elsewhere, is currently showing a suite of photographs there of burdock leaves depicted in early stages of decay and decomposition. A book accompanies the exhibition. It reduces the images by around one half. There are no notations as to size, edition or photographic process and subsequently does not function like a catalogue so much as a picture book. An introductory essay about her work by the author also accompanies it.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;">Malcolm writes in the introduction that the photographic portraits of Richard Avedon particularly influenced her—which he “radically extended photography’s capacity for cruelty…the faces he photographed were mercilessly, sometimes gruesomely, recorded.” Malcolm chooses to photograph leaves of the burdock plant because of its lowly status in the plant world &#8211; as a common weed that grows “along roadsides…and around derelict buildings” &#8211; and because of its literary status. She notes that Chekhov and Hawthorne have referenced it in their fiction to denote “ruin and desolation” and explains that she prefers “older, flawed leaves to young, unblemished specimens — leaves to which something has happened.”</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;">The Avedon portraits were largely of famous people, well known in the mass media. Like Malcolm’s statement about what the journalist does, Avedon, in some cases “preyed on their vanity.” The naïvely trusting Duke and Duchess of Windsor, for example, were reduced to pathos under Avedon’s lens, while more sophisticated sitters were willing collaborators in a new kind of celebrity portrait that exposed them in their ravaged glamour.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;">Avedon’s portrait photographs appeared at the very end of an era that saw photographic material as containing “truth”. Where we now understand that it is a kind of fiction. The photographer, Moyra Davey, in her recent, very exceptional book of writing on photography, “Long Life Cool White,” locates this moment of de-authenticity in 1981 when an essay appeared by Martha Rosler entitled “in, around and afterthoughts”. In the same essay in her book, Davey writes with great admiration for Malcolm, and discusses Malcolm on photography on a par with Sontag, Benjamin and Barthes.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;">Malcolm: “The camera’s bland inquisitiveness…[its] capacity for aimless vision…it is through photography that we first discover the existence of the optical unconscious, just as we discover the instinctual unconscious through psychoanalysis.”</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;">Davey also notes her appreciation for Malcolm’s odd personal revelations that crop up in her writing: “A small aside…will unexpectedly open up a window of emotional life onto what had otherwise been a fairly hermetic discursive field.” Any admiring reader of Malcolm brings a particular sense of expectation to the viewing of her photographs.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;">In the introductory essay Malcolm acknowledges how her leaf photographs have precedents in eighteenth and nineteenth century botanical illustration. She might also have mentioned leaf exposures performed by the nineteenth-century progenitors of the photographic medium.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;">All the leaves in the pictures have been popped up against a white wall with stem at bottom in a glass of water. Only one leaf picture in the exhibition, <em>Burdock No. 24</em> (all 2005-07) exposes the neck of the water bottle, and only <em>No. 12</em> does not maintain the entire image within its borders.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;">Most of the images are suspended in a slightly grainy atmosphere that is lost when reproduced in reduction in the book. The low luster of the paper stock in the book also robs the viewer of the Iris print quality which prints the image <em>into</em> the paper rather than suspending it in emulsion on top of it. The documented leaves all have individual personalities: <em>No. 17</em> is “prim”, <em>No. 21</em> is “busted”, and <em>No. 18</em> is “plagued”. <em>No. 4</em> is “like a tree”. <em>No. 6</em>, my favorite, contradicts the general run and is young, unfurling, like spring and forest blue green. <em>No. 16</em> is broken in shreds and is a deep dark green. All the photographs have beautiful color and evidence high technical accomplishment.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;">An added aspect is their ability to trigger memory out of proportion to the apparent subject matter, which brings the viewer to their curious vacancy, that the leaves may be individuals but seem to be stock characters. My suspicion is that the exhibition might be best considered as an extended aria to the camera. Its “bland inquisitiveness” seems to hover in the room, a strange, delightful presence never isolated quite this way before.</span></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://artcritical.com/2008/10/01/joe-fyfe-on-janet-malcolm/">Janet Malcolm: “Burdock”  at Lori Bookstein Fine Art</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://artcritical.com">artcritical</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://artcritical.com/2008/10/01/joe-fyfe-on-janet-malcolm/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Janet Malcolm</title>
		<link>https://artcritical.com/2003/11/01/janet-malcolm/</link>
					<comments>https://artcritical.com/2003/11/01/janet-malcolm/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Maureen Mullarkey]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Nov 2003 20:25:09 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Exhibitions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lori Bookstein Fine Art]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Malcolm| Janet]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://testingartcritical.com/?p=575</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Lori Bookstein Fine Art 50 East 78th Street New York NY 10021 Tel. 212.439.9605 October 9 to November 8, 2003 As a challenge to traditional painting, collage is one of Modernism&#8217;s lasting gifts. Argus-eyed, it endows its audience with a kaleidoscope of viewpoints along a scale from the personal and recondite to the purely formal. &#8230; <a href="https://artcritical.com/2003/11/01/janet-malcolm/">Continued</a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://artcritical.com/2003/11/01/janet-malcolm/">Janet Malcolm</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://artcritical.com">artcritical</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Lori Bookstein Fine Art<br />
50 East 78th Street<br />
New York NY 10021<br />
Tel. 212.439.9605<br />
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">October 9 to November 8, 2003</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></p>
<figure style="width: 249px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" title="Janet Malcolm Untitled 2001 paper collage, 9-1/2 x 7-1/4 inches. Courtesy Lori Bookstein Fine Arts" src="https://artcritical.com/blurbs/malcolm2.jpg" alt="Janet Malcolm Untitled 2001 paper collage, 9-1/2 x 7-1/4 inches. Courtesy Lori Bookstein Fine Arts" width="249" height="300" /><figcaption class="wp-caption-text">Janet Malcolm, Untitled 2001 paper collage, 9-1/2 x 7-1/4 inches. Courtesy Lori Bookstein Fine Arts</figcaption></figure>
<p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As a challenge to traditional painting, collage is one of Modernism&#8217;s lasting gifts. Argus-eyed, it endows its audience with a kaleidoscope of viewpoints along a scale from the personal and recondite to the purely formal. It is an art of association and surmise, its graphic symbols hinged to a range of experience that is as varied as the audience that looks at them.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Janet Malcolm handles the medium with the same attention to nuance, the same passion for exactitude that informs her writing. What becomes apparent in this exhibition is that a writer&#8217;s eye for telling details is quickened by the same nerve that excites pictorial intelligence. The aim of both is to get it right. Malcolm&#8217;s journalism career began with articles on interior decoration, design and photography. The visual preceded&#8211;and, throughout her working life, informed&#8211;everything.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This is beautiful and serious work, poised in a solitude all its own. It comes after twenty years of engaging papier collé‚ for her own pleasure. On view are thirty-three collages. Some originate in the rigor and self-effacement of Russian avant garde sensibility. Others, more fluid in form, depend on the graphic power of objets trouvés, a quarry of fragments mined for visual and associative effect. There is a Surrealist edge to certain ones that is carried off with great aplomb. The ensemble orbits around Malcolm&#8217;s long-held attachments to literature, psychology and art.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Her reservoir of objets trouv‚s leans toward the familial: the paper trail of a family history and its intellectual life. But biography is not the subject of this exhibition. Every artist reaches, psychologically or in fact, for those things closest at hand. In the end, what matters is not the artist&#8217;s experiences but her capacity to transmute private responses into forms that speak to strangers. Malcolm&#8217;s work speaks eloquently of the life of the mind and its capacity to civilize, order and interpret the confusion of the lived life.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Vladimir Tatlin, heady with art&#8217;s appointed mission in 1920, declared his distrust of the eye. But Malcolm, an attentive student of Kurt Schwitter&#8217;s genius, is careful to give the eye its due. Her attraction to hallmark Constructivist designs seems true to her own temper which, on the evidence here, is both reserved and austere. There is a structural composure-a calm-to these compositions that calls to mind that other acolyte of Kurt Schwitters, the lovely Anne Ryan.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Malcolm, like Ryan, chooses her floating fragments with a keen eye for texture and color. The works of each woman are on an intimate scale and convey an illusion of confidentiality. They suggest something sequestered, revealed behind closed doors to just the two of us. This is particularly true of Malcolm&#8217;s inclusion of old handwritten items. We respond to these stimuli in quite personal ways. They are catalysts of memory, her remembrances triggering our own. Acknowledgements of a human presence, they have the impact of letters from the dead.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Typography, where it appears, is chosen as much for its architecture&#8211;the weight , balance and magic of alphabets&#8211;as for signal value. Ryan jumped the boundaries of language, thoroughly subordinating the connotative aspect of printed stuffs to her palette. Malcolm, by contrast, has spent a life time using language as an instrument. She naturally retains and exploits verbal associations. Her selections mean what they say. An entry ticket to Cezanne&#8217;s atelier is intended to a be recognized for what it is. A scrap of a letter typed on an old manual typewriter serves its design purposes while it remains a sly but deliberate reference to Schwitters.</span></p>
<figure style="width: 277px" class="wp-caption alignleft"><img loading="lazy" title="Son 2003 paper collage, 11-1/2 x 10-1/2 inches" src="https://artcritical.com/blurbs/malcolm3.jpg" alt="Son 2003 paper collage, 11-1/2 x 10-1/2 inches" width="277" height="300" /><figcaption class="wp-caption-text">Son 2003 paper collage, 11-1/2 x 10-1/2 inches</figcaption></figure>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The floated faceting of these collages is subtle, elegant, many of them witty. But one particular image, titled Son, chilled me. A photo of an old crib hovers, weightless and off-axis, over a splayed black ground. The metal crib, on casters, is institutional, shorn of bedding or any suggestion of nurture and comfort. It stands empty in a space barren as any barracks. Here is an image of cold containment, pragmatic, unyielding, more suited to prison than the nursery. A cage. Given the time frame suggested by the age of the crib and the black and red Constructivist surround, it is impossible not to see it as an icon of detention and deprivation. The image is freighted with a weight that has not lifted since the 1930&#8217;s.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Malcolm&#8217;s artistry is consistent with the restraint, discipline and regard for object, rather than process, which characterized early Constructivist work. Her temperament respects control. And control slips only once.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The oversized America 1950 is predictable feminist kitsch. A catalogue of male portraits smile at us from annual reports circa late 40&#8217;s. The single female face is shrouded, as if in purdah, by a piece of vellum. The whine is almost audible: women are exiles in a man&#8217;s world. Coming from Janet Malcolm&#8211;no outsider, she&#8211;it seems disingenuous. The piece indulges in the reflexive, approved disdain of a politicized present. Besides, Malcolm&#8217;s Dadaist models took aim at their contemporaries. Anybody can kick a decade long finished.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But false notes have their uses, if only as reminders that art is measured by what it rejects as much as by what it embraces. There is an elegiac quality to this work that extends beyond the personal. Without necessarily intending to, it bears witness to the illusional character of its antecedents. Art&#8217;s contra mundum stance in the opening decade of the twentieth century has not brought down the house. In art, radical breaks heal over and yesterday&#8217;s daring become today&#8217;s decor.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There is a lesson in Malcolm&#8217;s gravitation toward Constructivist design principles that extends beyond their approriateness to family history. The formal achievements of a previous age remain alive and enlivening to those who respond to them. It is the dead hand of the present that has to be feared.</span></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://artcritical.com/2003/11/01/janet-malcolm/">Janet Malcolm</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://artcritical.com">artcritical</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://artcritical.com/2003/11/01/janet-malcolm/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
