Martha Rosler, Afghanistan? Iraq?, 2008
- Karen Rosenberg tepidly pens a critical review of Martha Rosler’s exhibition GREAT POWER at Mitchel-Innes & Nash in the New York Times. To boil it down she likes the works depicting amputees and a “larger than life prosthetic leg”, but complains we’ve seen this before (the link between the objectification of women and war isn’t strong the second time around). She also suggests Rosler may be selling out (big digital prints sell for more!). I’m not bothered by either issue. To begin with, I don’t see how anyone can make the absurd argument that the use of models in this work seems an “afterthought”, in light of photos like the Prada model-soldier diptych [pictured above] in which both figures symbolize conquest and economic strength. By design the piece means to compare the two representations — it’s not the only one that functions this way. As for the size and saleability of the work, I find it an odd request from a critic that an artist interested in media critique — a medium produced almost entirely by digital means at this point — limit themselves to smaller scale work just because it will seem less commercial. Rosenberg doesn’t explicitly lay claim to this particular criticism noting only that others might take issue with it, but since she does nothing to dispel the idea, it’s reasonable to assume she agrees with it. No mention is made about how visually effective the scale of these prints are, an unfortunate oversight, as their large size benefits the exhibition. Surely the large prosthetic leg hanging from the ceiling Rosenberg liked so much would look grossly out of place were the collages she preferred at a small scale actually that size. Finally, the critic doesn’t hit on my quibble with the show: The inclusion of Off the Shelf, War and Empire, and other similar photographs documenting various arrangements of important books on the subject. I hate reading list art.
- Christy Lange at Freize Magazine observes art makes a small appearance in Mad Men, aTV series about New York City advertising executives in the early 1960s, only to be discussed and evaluated by its value. I like to think this way of talking about art will diminish as we all start to feel the effects of the economy. Of course, every dealer I spoke to Thursday and Friday about the economy reports strong sales even amongst their emerging artists. How is it every gallery in the city is pleased with how well they’re doing when a large part of their client base is being hammered the financial markets? I don’t buy it.
- Also illustrated Mad Men scenes. Via The Star.
- Holland Cotter brilliantly sums up my difficulty with artists Gilbert and George at the New York Times.
The look-alike personal style they've affected, a robotic blandness, has probably had something to do with this; they are certainly no one's idea of a glamour couple. And their sleek, photo-based, politically incorrect across-the-spectrum art is as hard to love as it is to categorize. Even if you appreciate it, you may prefer not to spend time with it.
- Ultimately he gives Gilbert and George a thumbs up and the Brooklyn Museum’s retrospective a thumbs to the side (“A little Gilbert & George goes a long way. In even moderate doses — and this show is immoderately large, spread over two floors — the work wears you down..”)
{ 9 comments }
If HC had written, “a little goes a long way,” it would sit lumpy on the page, like poorly mixed batter. But the sentence, “even if you appreciate it, you may prefer not to spend time with it,” rings out. I said to myself, Self, exactly. And yet it’s the same idea as a little goes a long way, because to see a lot takes time, and time is what HC doesn’t want to give. What makes G&G work is their lack of glamour, and HC isn’t clear about that or why it’s so. I love his writing, and I sometimes wonder if I’m seduced by his clean phrases when I shouldn’t be, but maybe I’m just jealous. Regina
If HC had written, “a little goes a long way,” it would sit lumpy on the page, like poorly mixed batter. But the sentence, “even if you appreciate it, you may prefer not to spend time with it,” rings out. I said to myself, Self, exactly. And yet it’s the same idea as a little goes a long way, because to see a lot takes time, and time is what HC doesn’t want to give. What makes G&G work is their lack of glamour, and HC isn’t clear about that or why it’s so. I love his writing, and I sometimes wonder if I’m seduced by his clean phrases when I shouldn’t be, but maybe I’m just jealous. Regina
Art couples are interesting. When you have two people creating art together almost as if they are one artist you have to ask two questions. One, what happens if they split up as in the relationship goes bad. Two, what happens when one dies.I mean… who owns what and all that jazz.
Art couples are interesting. When you have two people creating art together almost as if they are one artist you have to ask two questions. One, what happens if they split up as in the relationship goes bad. Two, what happens when one dies.I mean… who owns what and all that jazz.
It isn’t about Prada or others, it’s about Rosler citing her own work. At least do the research on her in the last ten years. She became known because of her library tour. That explains the books-reading list images. And so on.
Rosler was less-than-interesting as a gallery artist in the early 90s, certainly in terms of what a gallery wants (sales) even when she was having many large format photos of, say, trucks driving, which represented whatever it is the title and the text explained about borders, distribution, and labor.
To be honest, what kick-started her career in the mid 90s was the sudden new versions of her early Vietnam-crit works (housewives, kitchens, images of war montage) which even banks in Germany found ok to have in their collection.
So sure, that is the route she re-enters the field, not more videowork. There are going to be re-versions of that. Just as if war is always war, Vietnam is Iraq is Afghanistan, and 1970s visual-critique artistic strategy is always valid and not worn-out gesture.
It isn’t about Prada or others, it’s about Rosler citing her own work. At least do the research on her in the last ten years. She became known because of her library tour. That explains the books-reading list images. And so on.
Rosler was less-than-interesting as a gallery artist in the early 90s, certainly in terms of what a gallery wants (sales) even when she was having many large format photos of, say, trucks driving, which represented whatever it is the title and the text explained about borders, distribution, and labor.
To be honest, what kick-started her career in the mid 90s was the sudden new versions of her early Vietnam-crit works (housewives, kitchens, images of war montage) which even banks in Germany found ok to have in their collection.
So sure, that is the route she re-enters the field, not more videowork. There are going to be re-versions of that. Just as if war is always war, Vietnam is Iraq is Afghanistan, and 1970s visual-critique artistic strategy is always valid and not worn-out gesture.
It isn’t about Prada or others, it’s about Rosler citing her own work. At least do the research on her in the last ten years. She became known because of her library tour. That explains the books-reading list images. And so on.
Rosler was less-than-interesting as a gallery artist in the early 90s, certainly in terms of what a gallery wants (sales) even when she was having many large format photos of, say, trucks driving, which represented whatever it is the title and the text explained about borders, distribution, and labor.
To be honest, what kick-started her career in the mid 90s was the sudden new versions of her early Vietnam-crit works (housewives, kitchens, images of war montage) which even banks in Germany found ok to have in their collection.
So sure, that is the route she re-enters the field, not more videowork. There are going to be re-versions of that. Just as if war is always war, Vietnam is Iraq is Afghanistan, and 1970s visual-critique artistic strategy is always valid and not worn-out gesture.
Arthur1: Rosler herself talks about how she cites herself in this work in the NYTimes slide show, I’m not oblivious to that. Just because I didn’t mention it doesn’t mean I’m unaware of it, nor does it mean the subject matter I bring up doesn’t exist. You can drop the snide attitude.
To your second point, I’m also not unaware of her library project, though I’m not overly interested in it. The project takes off from Donald Judd’s Library – though hers can be moved – and was taken on at the suggestion of Anton Vodkle. I stand by what I said: I don’t like reading list art. The library is non-circulating, and I’m not interested in going to a gallery to do a little extra-curricular reading.
Now, I don’t know why you’re talking about what kick-started her career as if it was something I addressed in error, but lets be clear: What “kick-started” her career in the mid 90’s more than anything else was her decision to take on gallery representation. She held out on that for years, and as much as anyone says that non-commercial art has just as much chance at cannonization as anything else, the fact of the matter is, this system privileges those art that can be bought and sold. Name the best known artists you can think of in the later 20th century and you’ll note they are all very financially successful.
Arthur1: Rosler herself talks about how she cites herself in this work in the NYTimes slide show, I’m not oblivious to that. Just because I didn’t mention it doesn’t mean I’m unaware of it, nor does it mean the subject matter I bring up doesn’t exist. You can drop the snide attitude.
To your second point, I’m also not unaware of her library project, though I’m not overly interested in it. The project takes off from Donald Judd’s Library – though hers can be moved – and was taken on at the suggestion of Anton Vodkle. I stand by what I said: I don’t like reading list art. The library is non-circulating, and I’m not interested in going to a gallery to do a little extra-curricular reading.
Now, I don’t know why you’re talking about what kick-started her career as if it was something I addressed in error, but lets be clear: What “kick-started” her career in the mid 90’s more than anything else was her decision to take on gallery representation. She held out on that for years, and as much as anyone says that non-commercial art has just as much chance at cannonization as anything else, the fact of the matter is, this system privileges those art that can be bought and sold. Name the best known artists you can think of in the later 20th century and you’ll note they are all very financially successful.
Comments on this entry are closed.