Jerry Saltz's new column, raises several questions. First, why must his critiscm so lazily resort to art historical name dropping as the primary way to understand Sillman's work? Are we supposed to be impressed by Saltz's aesthetic thesaurus, or did he run out of things to say about the actual work, yet had a word count to make? If the only way to have a discussion about a creative artifact is through other bodies of work what is the point? It reduces new work to reactions, as opposed to revelations. Yes, I want to be informed of possible influences and relationships, but leave the Gardner's index alone. Also, anyone who has your column in the last year knows where you stand on the sexist state of the art world. Stop reminding us of your enlightened crusade to cure Manhattan of its misogyny. And tempering your reviews of females by devoting portions to a male artist is a bit pot and kettle. (See the past two weeks)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
No comments:
Post a Comment