Wolfe's book--actually an essay that he illustrated--is the greatest indictment filed against the 20th century on record, and one of the most wonderful books written on art that I've read. I have indeed referenced it in these pages in the past. His target is pretty much the New York School/post WWII period (and onward), not the early-century avant-garde. The section you quote, Stephen, goes off into parts that I don't entirely agree with, but he nails it where he says that the Art Establishment (once the avant-garde) has created a system whereby the theory is the thing. Whereby the art itself is secondary to the word written around it. The idea that people have to read a book to experience art is fundamentally a 20th centry idea that reflects back on things like pointillism. The experience of the art becomes secondary to what you think you are supposed to know and what you seek to be told.
Another quote from the book that I have handy is Wolfe's response to a review written by Hilton Kramer of the New York Times published April 28, 1974.
"What I saw before me was the critic-in-chief of The New York Times saying…in short: frankly, these days, without a theory to go with it, I can’t see a painting."
Wolfe was referring to a review by Kramer of an exhibit at Yale called "Seven Realists" in which Kramer wrote:
Realism does not lack its partisans, but it does rather conspicuously lack a persuasive theory. And given the nature of our intellectual commerce with works of art, to lack a persuasive theory is to lack something crucial—the means by which our experience of individual works is joined to our understanding of the values they signify
Amazing. Sorry about the large cut-and-paste type. But it does support Kramer's critical hot air.
I think it gets a bit off topic for this thread, but the topic has kind of blurred and I love The Painted Word.
Last edited by Rick Mullin; 07-15-2011 at 11:17 AM.
|