POST BY: PADDY JOHNSON
Kenneth Noland, Lotus, 1962, Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden. Image via: Artnet
Tom Moody doesn’t find Roberta Smith’s obituary for Kenneth Noland particularly complimentary. “Perhaps to his detriment, Mr. Noland was ardently loyal to his formalist principles” writes Smith, a line Moody describes over Twitter as an “unelaborated jab”. He’s probably right to point out that her write-up isn’t fair — the guy was a color field painter, of course he’s “ardently loyal” to formalism — though I wonder if her words are just another indication that The Times is short staffed. After all, if you’re working with a writer who’s only got “When he was good he was excellent” in their nice-things-to-say-about-dead-artists arsenal, you usually enlist someone else.
The Times had William Grimes write the full obituary.
{ 4 comments }
Roberta Smith did this with Steven Parrino’s death notice as well–managed to convey her boredom and a faint whiff of disapproval in a forum where it’s not appropriate. I mean, the guy’s dead, he is now beyond the iron grip of the Times’ judgment. Grimes’ term “high modernist” is a better way to describe Noland–to me “formalist” carries the implication of pedantry. What’s more annoying about Smith using that word to describe him, though, is the “perhaps to his detriment” without any explanation. Detriment in Smith’s mind certainly. The ultimate detriment will be if later artists see nothing inspiring in his work, and that has proven not to be the case again and again during Smith’s tenure (everything from Neo Geo to Monique Prieto to Marc Handelman shows the influence of Noland’s school, even if it is ironic.)
Roberta Smith did this with Steven Parrino’s death notice as well–managed to convey her boredom and a faint whiff of disapproval in a forum where it’s not appropriate. I mean, the guy’s dead, he is now beyond the iron grip of the Times’ judgment. Grimes’ term “high modernist” is a better way to describe Noland–to me “formalist” carries the implication of pedantry. What’s more annoying about Smith using that word to describe him, though, is the “perhaps to his detriment” without any explanation. Detriment in Smith’s mind certainly. The ultimate detriment will be if later artists see nothing inspiring in his work, and that has proven not to be the case again and again during Smith’s tenure (everything from Neo Geo to Monique Prieto to Marc Handelman shows the influence of Noland’s school, even if it is ironic.)
Noland was awesome!
Noland was awesome!
Comments on this entry are closed.