From left to right: Vito Acconci, Philip Guston, Lynda Benglis
Tom Moody observed in my comments the other day that Jerry Saltz added quite a bit the New York Canon piece originally published in New York Magazine this April. The piece was recently reworked and published on artnet. “Is a canon really a canon when it changes from publication to publication…”, Moody rightly asks. He makes a good point, though I half feel I should let it slide given the number of pieces I’ve wanted to amend after they’ve gone to print.
Notably, Saltz takes the opportunity to issue a number of qualifiers to an inevitably problematic piece,
A canon is antithetical to everything the New York art world has been about for the past 40 years, during which time we went from being the center of the art world to being one of many centers. But New York magazine is celebrating its 40 year anniversary and asked me to think about what events make up a New York Canon of art.
In other words, “A New York canon can’t be constructed, but the piece wasn’t my idea”. Saltz goes on to describe his additions as an ever expanding cloud as opposed to a time line, and further defend his choice of non-New York based artists, a criticism lodged by blogger Tyler Green when the article came out. “I choose work that seemed to change the way that art looked in New York.” writes Saltz, a useful clarification for a piece that now includes a number of national and international artists, but one that only further underscores his disinterest in penning a definitive list. As Moody points out, the critic adds a number of artists to the list cloud including, Matthew Barney, Rirkrit Tiravanija, Maya Linn, and Vanessa Beecroft. The piece itself is a useful survey of important New York art events over the last 37 years.
{ 18 comments }
Just to be clear, Saltz’s original canon appeared in New York mag and his expanded canon appeared on Artnet, thus my comment about it “changing from publication to publication.”
Just to be clear, Saltz’s original canon appeared in New York mag and his expanded canon appeared on Artnet, thus my comment about it “changing from publication to publication.”
I updated the post so that that’s clear.
I updated the post so that that’s clear.
The beef I have with Saltz’s take on art history is this. He is right that there is no clear cut, linear, art historical narrative. But there are certainly art stars who get most of the attention of the press. Saltz has implied in the past that there are no more art stars and everything is a ‘cloud’ or whatever. I disagree.
The beef I have with Saltz’s take on art history is this. He is right that there is no clear cut, linear, art historical narrative. But there are certainly art stars who get most of the attention of the press. Saltz has implied in the past that there are no more art stars and everything is a ‘cloud’ or whatever. I disagree.
I think it’s entertaining to read but it doesn’t really reflect New York art reality…most of us know narratives are fictional and distorted. James Kalm did a good job in last month’s Brooklyn Rail of pointing out the role of editing (i.e. Brooklyn) in fashioning this dream of a New York canon….and who is talking about canons nowadays anyway? That’s sooo pre-Obama 🙂
I think it’s entertaining to read but it doesn’t really reflect New York art reality…most of us know narratives are fictional and distorted. James Kalm did a good job in last month’s Brooklyn Rail of pointing out the role of editing (i.e. Brooklyn) in fashioning this dream of a New York canon….and who is talking about canons nowadays anyway? That’s sooo pre-Obama 🙂
Eric: I agree. There are art stars – I can’t imagine arguing that there aren’t frankly – I mean you can’t describe someone like Ryan Trecartin and not note that he’s an art star.
Hrag: Thanks for the article tip. I think canons are almost inherently interesting – perhaps because of their flaws.
Eric: I agree. There are art stars – I can’t imagine arguing that there aren’t frankly – I mean you can’t describe someone like Ryan Trecartin and not note that he’s an art star.
Hrag: Thanks for the article tip. I think canons are almost inherently interesting – perhaps because of their flaws.
I don’t want to sound like I am making unfounded claims about Saltz. Here is a quote from Saltz’s New York Magazine essay entitled “Has Money Ruined Art?”
“Not only does this add to the overall chaos of the moment—it means that, as in the early nineties, there are no dominant movements, no alpha artists hogging the airwaves.”
He specifically states that there are currently no alpha artists ‘hogging the airwaves’ and that is complete bullshit.
I don’t want to sound like I am making unfounded claims about Saltz. Here is a quote from Saltz’s New York Magazine essay entitled “Has Money Ruined Art?”
“Not only does this add to the overall chaos of the moment—it means that, as in the early nineties, there are no dominant movements, no alpha artists hogging the airwaves.”
He specifically states that there are currently no alpha artists ‘hogging the airwaves’ and that is complete bullshit.
The revised canon may be upsetting to some of the artists. For example:
Cindy Sherman: Hey, ma, I’m in Jerry Saltz’s canon!
Ma: That’s nice, but you know he expanded it.
Or:
Matthew Barney: Hey, Grandma, I’m in Jerry Saltz’s canon!
Grandma: The New York magazine one or the Artnet one?
The revised canon may be upsetting to some of the artists. For example:
Cindy Sherman: Hey, ma, I’m in Jerry Saltz’s canon!
Ma: That’s nice, but you know he expanded it.
Or:
Matthew Barney: Hey, Grandma, I’m in Jerry Saltz’s canon!
Grandma: The New York magazine one or the Artnet one?
Tom: This is true, though it’s hard to know to what degree. I suppose this sort of reshuffling though represents the constant re-evaluation of the canon, which is probably as much of a mind fuck for the few artists like Barney who not only have to come to terms with the title of “most important artist of his generation”, but his inevitable subsequent decrowning.
BTW, I actually like some of Matthew Barney’s work – this in reference to your post. His editing and sense of pace as Halter notes certainly leave something to be desired, but the objects and some individual scenes are incredible. I really wish he hadn’t made that car with the ball sack attached to one of the tires. It’s hard to imagine a more cliche piece.
Tom: This is true, though it’s hard to know to what degree. I suppose this sort of reshuffling though represents the constant re-evaluation of the canon, which is probably as much of a mind fuck for the few artists like Barney who not only have to come to terms with the title of “most important artist of his generation”, but his inevitable subsequent decrowning.
BTW, I actually like some of Matthew Barney’s work – this in reference to your post. His editing and sense of pace as Halter notes certainly leave something to be desired, but the objects and some individual scenes are incredible. I really wish he hadn’t made that car with the ball sack attached to one of the tires. It’s hard to imagine a more cliche piece.
Well there’s reshuffling once a decade a so based on a changed consensus and then there’s the same writer shuffling it twice in one month. I think your summation nails it: “A New York canon can’t be constructed, but the piece wasn’t my idea.”
I remember asking a dealer in the early ’90s what she thought Matthew Barney was about. Her answer was less articulate than Saltz’s (“Barney combined Nauman, Beuys, Serra, Joan Jonas, strange materials and something so physical, dense and unknowable that he created his own mystic one-man movement”) but it was about that vague.
I don’t think anyone actually wrestled much with the content. I remember Ron Jones complaining that there were no critics to explain someone of Barney’s generation. (I have some ideas but he doesn’t need my help.) Yet every show got slam-dunk coverage, leading up to the Guggenheim spectacle.
Well there’s reshuffling once a decade a so based on a changed consensus and then there’s the same writer shuffling it twice in one month. I think your summation nails it: “A New York canon can’t be constructed, but the piece wasn’t my idea.”
I remember asking a dealer in the early ’90s what she thought Matthew Barney was about. Her answer was less articulate than Saltz’s (“Barney combined Nauman, Beuys, Serra, Joan Jonas, strange materials and something so physical, dense and unknowable that he created his own mystic one-man movement”) but it was about that vague.
I don’t think anyone actually wrestled much with the content. I remember Ron Jones complaining that there were no critics to explain someone of Barney’s generation. (I have some ideas but he doesn’t need my help.) Yet every show got slam-dunk coverage, leading up to the Guggenheim spectacle.
Comments on this entry are closed.