From left to right: Vito Acconci, Philip Guston, Lynda Benglis
In contrast to Tyler Green, I don’t care if Jerry Saltz’s NYC art canon cheats a little and includes a piece made in Los Angeles or names Kara Walker a key figure, even though she’d adopted an Angeleno aesthetic. The list covers the last 40 years of artmaking, and while imperfect, I’m pleased to say I don’t have too many problems with the names Bruce Nauman, Vito Acconci, Philip Guston, Sol LeWitt, Lynda Benglis, Gordon Matta-Clark, Jennifer Bartlett, Cindy Sherman, Keith Haring, David Hammons, Andy Warhol, Andres Serrano, Cady Noland, Jeff Koons, and Kara Walker. Matthew Barney’s Cremaster series is a notable exclusion here, particularly given the support the critic has given him over the last 10 or more years. His absence can be seen as one more sign of the artist’s passing popularity. Also, while it’s a little early, arguably Nam June Paik’s use of a Sony Portapak to shoot Pope Paul VI’s procession through New York City in 1965 should have made that list, since it marks, for many, the beginning of video art. Nam June Paik also coined the phrase “information superhighway” in the 1970’s, and was an important figure to early net artists.
{ 26 comments }
That Tyler Green link seems to be kaput…
I’m surprised that Rirkrit Tiravanija cooking Thai food in the gallery wasn’t included.
Note there is no “art about earlier art” or “art about the art world” on Saltz’s list. We were arguing a while back about the relative importance of that.
Picking Benglis’ sexy Artforum ad (over her paintings) might count as that–it was a response to an earlier ad with Robert Morris in a German helmet.
Saltz’s inclusion of Cady Noland explains why Saltz got so upset when Triple Candie recreated her work. Canons must be protected!
That Tyler Green link seems to be kaput…
I’m surprised that Rirkrit Tiravanija cooking Thai food in the gallery wasn’t included.
Note there is no “art about earlier art” or “art about the art world” on Saltz’s list. We were arguing a while back about the relative importance of that.
Picking Benglis’ sexy Artforum ad (over her paintings) might count as that–it was a response to an earlier ad with Robert Morris in a German helmet.
Saltz’s inclusion of Cady Noland explains why Saltz got so upset when Triple Candie recreated her work. Canons must be protected!
I fixed that – thanks for the heads up.
I’m not that surprised Rirkrit Tiravanija wasn’t included. Saltz wrote a long piece extolling the virtues of relational aesthetics in the 90’s (can’t seem to find it – I think it was for art in america) but I don’t sense the same kind of engagement in it than I’ve seen in say, his review of the Biennial. It’s a different kind of write up of course, but I feel like Saltz is good on certain kinds of current trends, and formalism, but has a lot less interest in e-flux crowd art.
I think I’d say Benglis’ Artforum ad is art about art or art about earlier art, but if we’re choosing art for its political currency it certainly belongs on the list. I mean, I hate the Serrano and his discussion of Piss Christ in the 90’s, but I reluctantly agree that it should be there if for no other reason than we’re still suffering from the effects.
I couldn’t remember if Saltz was in on the Triple Candie pile on or not. I guess the answer to that is yes.
I fixed that – thanks for the heads up.
I’m not that surprised Rirkrit Tiravanija wasn’t included. Saltz wrote a long piece extolling the virtues of relational aesthetics in the 90’s (can’t seem to find it – I think it was for art in america) but I don’t sense the same kind of engagement in it than I’ve seen in say, his review of the Biennial. It’s a different kind of write up of course, but I feel like Saltz is good on certain kinds of current trends, and formalism, but has a lot less interest in e-flux crowd art.
I think I’d say Benglis’ Artforum ad is art about art or art about earlier art, but if we’re choosing art for its political currency it certainly belongs on the list. I mean, I hate the Serrano and his discussion of Piss Christ in the 90’s, but I reluctantly agree that it should be there if for no other reason than we’re still suffering from the effects.
I couldn’t remember if Saltz was in on the Triple Candie pile on or not. I guess the answer to that is yes.
Yes, he said Noland should “get a lawyer to get medieval on Triple Candie.” According to anaba, as I recall, Saltz was also griping about the show on the lecture circuit.
Yes, he said Noland should “get a lawyer to get medieval on Triple Candie.” According to anaba, as I recall, Saltz was also griping about the show on the lecture circuit.
Vito Acconci rocks! I just read a recent interview that he did.
Vito Acconci rocks! I just read a recent interview that he did.
Vito Acconci rocks! I just read a recent interview that he did.
yes, he talked about disliking the hammond and noland shows, and said that the show “the trouble with triple candie” should have been called “the trouble with our genitals”
at that same lecture, incidentally, he described himself as the first and last matthew barney fan, meaning that he was the only person who still liked matthew barney.
yes, he talked about disliking the hammond and noland shows, and said that the show “the trouble with triple candie” should have been called “the trouble with our genitals”
at that same lecture, incidentally, he described himself as the first and last matthew barney fan, meaning that he was the only person who still liked matthew barney.
Ha! Apparently not enough to list him as part of the canon. It’s also patently untrue, since Barney still made at least one person’s top ten list last year at artforum.
Ha! Apparently not enough to list him as part of the canon. It’s also patently untrue, since Barney still made at least one person’s top ten list last year at artforum.
According to Benglis’ Wikipedia entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynda_Benglis
…the ad with Robert Morris “in full ‘butch’ S&M regalia” ran in the same issue of Artforum as the Benglis ad. The source is Anna Chave. Can anyone confirm this?
Wikip. also says “Morris’ advertisement, however, generated little commentary, providing evidence for Benglis’ view that male artists were encouraged to promote themselves, whereas women were chastised for doing so.”
Well, she’s in the “canon” now for the ad and not her usual work (poured paint sculptures–I incorrectly called them paintings). I don’t know what thay says about anything.
According to Benglis’ Wikipedia entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynda_Benglis
…the ad with Robert Morris “in full ‘butch’ S&M regalia” ran in the same issue of Artforum as the Benglis ad. The source is Anna Chave. Can anyone confirm this?
Wikip. also says “Morris’ advertisement, however, generated little commentary, providing evidence for Benglis’ view that male artists were encouraged to promote themselves, whereas women were chastised for doing so.”
Well, she’s in the “canon” now for the ad and not her usual work (poured paint sculptures–I incorrectly called them paintings). I don’t know what thay says about anything.
According to Benglis’ Wikipedia entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynda_Benglis
…the ad with Robert Morris “in full ‘butch’ S&M regalia” ran in the same issue of Artforum as the Benglis ad. The source is Anna Chave. Can anyone confirm this?
Wikip. also says “Morris’ advertisement, however, generated little commentary, providing evidence for Benglis’ view that male artists were encouraged to promote themselves, whereas women were chastised for doing so.”
Well, she’s in the “canon” now for the ad and not her usual work (poured paint sculptures–I incorrectly called them paintings). I don’t know what thay says about anything.
According to Benglis’ Wikipedia entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynda_Benglis
…the ad with Robert Morris “in full ‘butch’ S&M regalia” ran in the same issue of Artforum as the Benglis ad. The source is Anna Chave. Can anyone confirm this?
Wikip. also says “Morris’ advertisement, however, generated little commentary, providing evidence for Benglis’ view that male artists were encouraged to promote themselves, whereas women were chastised for doing so.”
Well, she’s in the “canon” now for the ad and not her usual work (poured paint sculptures–I incorrectly called them paintings). I don’t know what thay says about anything.
(Thanks to D for noting this)
(Thanks to D for noting this)
(Thanks to D for noting this)
(Thanks to D for noting this)
(Thanks to D for noting this)
This is weird:
Jerry Saltz rewrote his “canon” piece for Artnet
http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/saltz/saltz4-23-08.asp
and includes Matthew Barney and Rirkrit Tiravanija.
Is a canon really a canon when it changes from publication to publication so as not to have anyone feel left out?
This is weird:
Jerry Saltz rewrote his “canon” piece for Artnet
http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/saltz/saltz4-23-08.asp
and includes Matthew Barney and Rirkrit Tiravanija.
Is a canon really a canon when it changes from publication to publication so as not to have anyone feel left out?
This is weird:
Jerry Saltz rewrote his “canon” piece for Artnet
http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/saltz/saltz4-23-08.asp
and includes Matthew Barney and Rirkrit Tiravanija.
Is a canon really a canon when it changes from publication to publication so as not to have anyone feel left out?
This is weird:
Jerry Saltz rewrote his “canon” piece for Artnet
http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/saltz/saltz4-23-08.asp
and includes Matthew Barney and Rirkrit Tiravanija.
Is a canon really a canon when it changes from publication to publication so as not to have anyone feel left out?
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }