Jackson Pollock, Mural, Image via: Thinking About Art
- “The Internet, glorious as it is, should be thought of as the plague of postmodernity.” writes Elizabeth Wurtzel in the Wall Street Journal, upset that the music and entertainment industry isn’t doing very well due to all this downloading and DIY business. Musician Pete Yorn isn’t the super star he should be, international markets might now prefer something local to the latest version of Rush Hour, and the only profession seemingly left untouched by the Internet is fine art, the entire field dismissable because as Wurtzel makes the argument, “they are a carry over from Europe”. Expanding on this thought, she writes,
They are Old World. We’ll never overwhelm the planet with brushes and clay and pencils the way we did with celluloid and vinyl and acetate. If our most original painter was Jackson Pollock, he was still no Picasso, and we all know it.
Our movies and music are America. And the day the music dies, the party’s over.
To put it bluntly this is the dumbest arts related argument I have seen made in the Wall Street Journal, and possibly the scariest. Wurtzel isn’t just making ignorant assertions about who does what better, she’s using them to make a case that European influence undercuts originality and influence. The piece is blatantly xenophobic. Also, to state the obvious, the points she’s made have nothing to do with how cultural and economic worth of an object is determined or the effect the technology has on these markets. To say that Internet hasn’t significantly effected the fine arts is to ignore the tremendous transparency online auction databases like artnet have given to the secondary market, (which obviously encourages buying), the benefits online bidding have had on auction houses, and the enormous growth it has facilitated within the field of limited edition fine art prints.
Responses include:
Spoutblog’s Karina Longworth, Downloading = The end of American Imperialism
Maura Johnston at Idolator, Elizabeth Wurtzel Really Misses the Monoculture, Man
- This week in museum scandals, Tyler Green reveals the possible motivations for University of Iowa regent Michael Gartner’s call to explore a forced deaccessioning of their museum’s 1943 Jackson Pollock, Mural. The deaccession would help pay for the 16 million dollars of flood damage the arts campus incurred earlier this year, though Green notes there may be more to this story, as Gartner requested Des Moines Art Center, an institution upon which the regent’s wife currently sits on the board, be contacted as a possible buyer. The Des Moines Art Center is close enough that the museum might still be able to show the painting occasionally, which might have made it a more swallowable sale, though top museums officials have started to chime in that the deaccession is not a good precedent to be setting. Related: Green’s interview UIMA interim director Pam White, Des Moines Register
- Giant Dog Turd Caught in the Wind. A signature Paul McCarthy inflatable turd was blown from its location at the Swiss Museum, bringing down a power line and breaking a window before finally landing at a children’s home. Via C-Monster.
{ 7 comments }
Well said. It annoys me more that mainstream paid art commentary often seems to be totally oblivious compared to the people giving it away for free. How hard is it to hire someone observant?
Well said. It annoys me more that mainstream paid art commentary often seems to be totally oblivious compared to the people giving it away for free. How hard is it to hire someone observant?
Re: the selling of Pollock’s Mural. I did my Master’s at the U of Iowa and so I have a serviceable insider’s take on Mural’s ontology. As the hearsay goes, the work originally was handled poorly by the museum. I think it came to Iowa via Pollock’s Visiting Artist stay in the 40’s, but from what the Museum workers said, it pretty much sat in a closet rolled up on the floor. This allegedly prompted Peggy Guggenheim to attempt to get it back, some saying there was an attempt to steal it back. Pearls before swine kinda thing, I guess, as the rolled canvas laid against a Motherwell, also kept in the closet, a long closet.
My opinion is that selling it to a MOCA or MOMA might not be a bad thing. The question comes down to who benefits from the work. The students in painting tend to be figurative and conservative who often dismissed Mural as poorly painted. Motherwell’s comment that the painting took Pollock 10 hours to paint was a source of derision, although it’s doubtful it was done in only 10 hours. Moreover, the traffic of spectators in the Museum is small, the usual public school kids, occasional art students and openings. Since most people go home for the weak ends, the Museum dies during that time. Placing the work in NY, LA or DC would obviously increase its viewing. The downside to the Iowa Museum, the other works of similar vintage, a fabulous, huge pre-Duco DeKooning woman, a classic all black Rheinhardt and a Joan Mitchel would all be candidates for sale and stick out like sore thumbs. So while Tyler Green’s citation of collusion has merit, the outcome might not be so bad.
To add to the Museum’s flood damage, I chanced into an art history major at Girl Talk at Lollapalooza who told me the new art building either has been condemned or has to be abandoned for students due to flood damage. This is the one which won all kinds of architectural awards for design and greeness, and was only a year old. This might add to the mix if the Museum is under the control of the Art & Art History Dept. and they desperately need new money.
Re: the selling of Pollock’s Mural. I did my Master’s at the U of Iowa and so I have a serviceable insider’s take on Mural’s ontology. As the hearsay goes, the work originally was handled poorly by the museum. I think it came to Iowa via Pollock’s Visiting Artist stay in the 40’s, but from what the Museum workers said, it pretty much sat in a closet rolled up on the floor. This allegedly prompted Peggy Guggenheim to attempt to get it back, some saying there was an attempt to steal it back. Pearls before swine kinda thing, I guess, as the rolled canvas laid against a Motherwell, also kept in the closet, a long closet.
My opinion is that selling it to a MOCA or MOMA might not be a bad thing. The question comes down to who benefits from the work. The students in painting tend to be figurative and conservative who often dismissed Mural as poorly painted. Motherwell’s comment that the painting took Pollock 10 hours to paint was a source of derision, although it’s doubtful it was done in only 10 hours. Moreover, the traffic of spectators in the Museum is small, the usual public school kids, occasional art students and openings. Since most people go home for the weak ends, the Museum dies during that time. Placing the work in NY, LA or DC would obviously increase its viewing. The downside to the Iowa Museum, the other works of similar vintage, a fabulous, huge pre-Duco DeKooning woman, a classic all black Rheinhardt and a Joan Mitchel would all be candidates for sale and stick out like sore thumbs. So while Tyler Green’s citation of collusion has merit, the outcome might not be so bad.
To add to the Museum’s flood damage, I chanced into an art history major at Girl Talk at Lollapalooza who told me the new art building either has been condemned or has to be abandoned for students due to flood damage. This is the one which won all kinds of architectural awards for design and greeness, and was only a year old. This might add to the mix if the Museum is under the control of the Art & Art History Dept. and they desperately need new money.
The Hill: Thanks for this comment. I have to be honest, I thought the work looked poorly painted myself, but I haven’t seen it in person so I wasn’t an opinion I could back with the experience of a looking at it first hand.
The Hill: Thanks for this comment. I have to be honest, I thought the work looked poorly painted myself, but I haven’t seen it in person so I wasn’t an opinion I could back with the experience of a looking at it first hand.
The Hill: Thanks for this comment. I have to be honest, I thought the work looked poorly painted myself, but I haven’t seen it in person so I wasn’t an opinion I could back with the experience of a looking at it first hand.
Comments on this entry are closed.