eBook - ePub
Hot, Cold, Heavy, Light, 100 Art Writings 1988–2018
Peter Schjeldahl
This is a test
Share book
- 404 pages
- English
- ePUB (mobile friendly)
- Available on iOS & Android
eBook - ePub
Hot, Cold, Heavy, Light, 100 Art Writings 1988–2018
Peter Schjeldahl
Book details
Book preview
Table of contents
Citations
About This Book
100 key writings from spanning across thirty years of the acclaimed New Yorker art critic's career. Hot, Cold, Heavy, Light collects 100 key writings by Peter Schjeldahl spinning thirty years, his last twenty as the art critic of the New Yorker. In this unfailingly lucid guide to an art world in constant, dramatic flux, Schjeldahl addresses new artists and Old Masters with the same pitch of acuity, empathy, and wit. No other writer enhances the reader's experience of art in precise, jargon-free prose as he does, with reviews that are as much essay as criticism. Implicit in Schjeldahl's role as a frontline critic is a focus on artists, issues, and events of urgent relevance to the culture at large. Holt, Cold, Heavy, Light tells us why we still care about Rembrandt and Mantegna, Matisse and Picasso; takes the measure of contemporaries Basquiat and Holzer, Polke and Kiefer, Sherman and Koons; introduces us to newcomers Kerry James Marshall and Laura Owens; and salutes rediscoveries of Florine Stettheimer, Hélio Oiticica, and Peter Hujar. The book provides essential knowledge to anyone curious about the character, quality, and consequence of art today. The pieces in Hot, Cold, Heavy, Light were compiled and arranged by the critic Jarrett Earnest, with an ear attuned to Schjeldahl's range of voices. "The effect of reading him in depth, over time, " Earnest says in his introduction, "is like that of great literature. You come away not only with new insights and ideas, but with a feeling of having been granted an extra life." "This is a rapturous read for art lovers and all who appreciate dynamic critical essays, " — Booklist "Bruce is no longer The Boss; Peter Schjeldahl is! Hot, Cold, Heavy, Light is the apex of artistic criticism and commentary, " —Steve Martin "The great New Yorker art critic writes like an angel about everyone from Vermeer to Picasso, Donatello to Andy Warhol, in beautiful, enjoyable, accessible essays across 30 years, " — Philadelphia Inquirer
Frequently asked questions
How do I cancel my subscription?
Can/how do I download books?
At the moment all of our mobile-responsive ePub books are available to download via the app. Most of our PDFs are also available to download and we're working on making the final remaining ones downloadable now. Learn more here.
What is the difference between the pricing plans?
Both plans give you full access to the library and all of Perlego’s features. The only differences are the price and subscription period: With the annual plan you’ll save around 30% compared to 12 months on the monthly plan.
What is Perlego?
We are an online textbook subscription service, where you can get access to an entire online library for less than the price of a single book per month. With over 1 million books across 1000+ topics, we’ve got you covered! Learn more here.
Do you support text-to-speech?
Look out for the read-aloud symbol on your next book to see if you can listen to it. The read-aloud tool reads text aloud for you, highlighting the text as it is being read. You can pause it, speed it up and slow it down. Learn more here.
Is Hot, Cold, Heavy, Light, 100 Art Writings 1988–2018 an online PDF/ePUB?
Yes, you can access Hot, Cold, Heavy, Light, 100 Art Writings 1988–2018 by Peter Schjeldahl in PDF and/or ePUB format, as well as other popular books in Arte & Teoria e critica dell'arte. We have over one million books available in our catalogue for you to explore.
Information
Topic
ArteSubtopic
Teoria e critica dell'artePART I
HOT & COLD
HOT
ANDY WARHOL
There aren’t enough Flowers.
How’s that for hard-hitting criticism of the Andy Warhol retrospective at the Museum of Modern Art? It will have to do. On an occasion so gaga that it begs for curmudgeonly demurral, I’m just another happy face in the crowd. I love the show. I love Warhol, with a fan’s abandon. The feeling isn’t so much a warm place in my heart, an organ not notably engaged by this artist, as a flat spot among the folds of my brain, from where they got run over in the sixties.
Warhol had a steamrollering effect on the whole mental apparatus of Western culture. The weight that did the trick wasn’t his but history’s: gigantic American power, pride, affluence, idealism, social mobility, technology, mass entertainment, and associated troubles. But nothing foreordained the appearance of an artist who would clarify the age, while it was happening, in icons of uncanny fidelity and amazing pleasure. Warhol gave shocks of self-recognition to lives that were changing anyway. He thus imbued many of us with the unreasoning devotion that is typical in the wake of conversion experiences. Mine came in Paris in 1965. It was a show of “Flowers.”
Having only paused in New York after fleeing the Midwest, I was living out a dreary year of unrequited romance with France. It was a gray day. I entered a gallery packed with Warhol’s silkscreens—big ones like billboards, little ones like ranked trivets—of hibiscus blossoms reduced to single flat colors amid grainy black-and-white blades of grass: photography degraded to the verge of abstraction. The pitch-perfect synthetic hues were never dreamed of in nature or previous art. My head sprouted a thought balloon: “Wrong city!”
Weeks later I was a naturalized New Yorker. I lived on Avenue B, used drugs, was often miserable but too excited to notice, saw Warhol’s films (saw all films, but Warhol’s stand out as the most revelatory of the decade), walked into galleries and was wowed, walked the streets and was wowed, gave or attended innumerable poetry readings, felt on the brink of possessing important knowledge, didn’t sleep much, anticipated a political Revolution (didn’t like the idea but didn’t argue), went with a flow like a whirlpool with riptides, and liked things.
Warhol said that Pop Art was “about liking things.” The effect was a sort of Zen keyed to supermarkets and movie magazines. (It had only glancingly to do with camp, Susan Sontag to the contrary, because active rather than reactive—a proposition of normality, even, with only whispers of rebellion and no defensiveness at all.) My compulsion to be analytical proved a nuisance, which I beat down with drugs and flirtations with the occult. (But the I Ching lost me to boredom by proving always right.) Aesthetic sensation inhered in every particle of a world like an explosion, things flying and tumbling.
I had a couple of conversations with Warhol, who was so omnipresent, you thought there must be several of him. I talked in rushes and jumbles. He replied, as near as I can recall, “Oh,” patiently. He was nice when not many were. (He referred in his diaries to “Peter Schjeldahl who I know hates me,” which, with remorse, I attribute to my way of dissembling nervousness. What looked like hostility was terrified respect.) He was shot in 1968. Everybody valuable seemed to be getting shot or else hit on the head by police or shattered by the drugs. People fled one another and crashed. It was over. What “it” was, I forgot.
At MoMA, I remember. I had expected the show to be beautiful and fun, which it is, and perhaps nostalgic, which it isn’t. The three hundred or so objects, most from the early and middle sixties, remain too potent to be mooned over. Their radiance is still like a lighthouse seen at night from a sinking ship. They reawaken a state of mind bashed around by impersonal forces, staggering for balance, and, now and then, making a dance of the stagger.
There are only two middling Flowers. The reason may be lingering sensitivity about one of MoMA’s old pieties—the sanctity of modernist abstraction—which Warhol wrecked. He strip-mined the pleasures of Clement-Greenbergian Color Field painting, which was touted then at the museum, and expunged its preciousness. Is this still a sore point on West Fifty-Third Street?
I didn’t know that in his miracle year of 1962 Warhol did a painting of Natalie Wood: several dozen repetitions of her preternaturally pretty face in black and white in that fast and lucky, there’s-no-such-thing-as-an-accident silk-screening. He also made one I hadn’t known about of Roger Maris hitting a home run: the big, grunting swing in rows of mighty whacks. Each work feels definitive, freezing for all time a fleeting euphoria.
I didn’t know how great were the Marilyns, Elvises, Lizzes, Marlons, Jackies, electric chairs, car crashes, and “wanted” posters—and the Flowers, where are the Flowers?—which is odd, because I thought they were as great as anything gets. Not that thinking has much to do with a sensation of, chiefly, rapture. Rapture merges the top, bottom, and all sides of yourself, such that you don’t know where you leave off and anything else begins. It’s like D. H. Lawrence’s speculation about the sensory awareness of fish in water: “one touch.”
The sixties were about blurring boundaries. Warhol triumphed because the frontiers—between high and low and art and commerce—never existed for him. Look at every other important artist then, especially every Pop artist, and you will detect some or another skittish irony. Warhol wasn’t ironic. He was neither naïve nor cynical. He was innocent and greedy. Middle-classniks tied themselves in knots trying to fathom the complexities of a mind whose secret was simplicity, as efficient a life-form as a shark, a cat, or an honest businessman. He gave himself with no strings attached, only price tags.
Warhol had a barbarian’s unblinking detachment, as a son of lower-class Slovak immigrants and (it turns out, which almost no one knew) a lifelong observant Eastern Orthodox Catholic. He became the artist laureate of capitalism, in which everything is priced, because it seemed to him only natural. Having grown up on the system’s under-side, with no privilege and thus no ambivalence, he didn’t fret about its morality, though he was moral within it.
He ran into creative trouble in the seventies, it’s true. MoMA’s representation of the later paintings is mercifully brief. (I do enjoy the society portraits, however—a genre achievement that no one has properly characterized yet, though some of us have tried.) I think the culture became so permeated with Warhol’s influence that his responses to it picked up feedback, to deleterious effect. He still did well with death (skulls, guns), totalitarian and shamanistic sublimities (Mao, Joseph Beuys), and himself (the never-fail self-portraits).
Warhol had announced that the show I saw in Paris in 1965 was his last one of painting. His next major outing, at Castelli in 1966, was a walk-in beautiful climax of the careening decade, with drifting silvery-plastic balloons that mirrored our delirium and cow wallpaper that mimed our stupefaction. He planned to abandon the art world for Hollywood—a campaign that was defeated by the movie industry’s real-life ways. (Liking things cut no mustard with bottom-line executives.) That he had to come limping back to New York, and to paint again, is still a little sad.
But leave downbeat notes to the curmudgeons. What they will miss, as usual, is that Warhol remains ahead of us all, as contemporary civilization’s comprehensive seer. He delivered the glamour-industrial goods with full knowledge of the bads inherent in them. The petrification of life played by rules of celebrity was a fair bargain for him, and a serviceable business plan, but he never disguised its coldness. Pleasure and alienation aren’t two sides of a coin in his work; they are the same side, a sleek, transparent surface with nothing—black-hole-in-space nothing—behind it. His art superimposes our gawking reflections on bottomless want.
7 Days, February 22, 1989
WILLEM DE KOONING
Like the bus in the thriller Speed, this masterpieces-only retrospective never slows down and thus is hard to board. How I did it was to stroll nonstop through the show, finally pausing in the last room with the eerily deliberate paintings of de Kooning’s dotage that lay out rudiments of his genius like silk ties on a bedspread. I studied those works that have no historical precedent that I can think of. Then I left the show and nonchalantly walked back in at the beginning, going straight to Pink Lady (1944) and giving it my full attention. The effect was like a plane taking off, when the acceleration presses you against the seat. The painting’s violent intelligence detonated pleasure after pleasure. When I turned around, everything in the show was singing its lungs out. Half an hour later I was beaten to a pulp of joy. I’ll rest and go back for more.
If something similar doesn’t happen for you at the Met, either you are distracted by personal woes or the art of painting is wasted on you. The art of painting does not get more exciting than Willem de Kooning on a good day, and this show amounts to months of his Sundays. Times critic Holland Cotter has argued well, in his review, that the Greatest Hits approach is a poor way to represent this artist, whose feints and jabs set up his knockouts. But we must do our best with what we are given. The show will make a doomsday division between those who are attuned to painting and those who aren’t.
De Kooning is ninety and under nursing care. He has not worked in several years. Except for some rumored late-late paintings, we have his whole career in sight. Only Picasso, Matisse, and maybe Mondrian, among the century’s painters, had more substantial careers over comparably long hauls, though you wouldn’t guess de Kooning’s stature from art criticism of the last three decades.
De Kooning did some of his strongest work after the early sixties, while excluded from the conversation of contemporary art. He seemed left behind. He was waiting ahead. At last catching up, we have no major critical assessments of him fresher than musty old myths of his existentialist heroism (Harold Rosenberg) and “Luciferian” ambition (Clement Greenberg), unless an allegedly lousy attitude toward women counts. It makes sense to start from scratch. I suggest a focus on de Kooning’s mental powers.
He was an intellectual giant among painters, with an analytical grasp that registers in every move with pencil or brush. A mark by de Kooning always has more than one thing on its mind: direction, contour, composition, velocity. The mark lies on the surface and digs into pictorial space. It makes a shape of itself and describes shapes next to it. Such doubleness derives from Cubism, which gave de Kooning his initial orientation. With crucial guidance from Arshile Gorky, who showed him ways around Picasso’s intimidatingly authoritative permutations, de Kooning blew open the Cubist grid, changing its mode from structural to fluid. De Kooning is to classical Cubism as flying is to walking.
His art is not abstract, just relentlessly abstracting. Memories of depiction cling to every stroke. They contribute to a fabulous complexity that, as you look, can supercharge your capacity to maintain disparate thoughts simultaneously. This is never more the case than in the Women, where sublimely abstracted marks bend to the vulgarity of a derisive, yakking image. It is as if an angel choir chanted a dirty limerick. Savagely comic, the work unites exalted and degraded feelings in Möbius-strip continuity.
De Kooning had the skills with line, paint, and color of an Old Master, the last in a parade from the Renaissance. After Jackson Pollock, dripping, broke physical contact with canvas, ideas commenced to eclipse craft in significant art. The craft secrets lodged in de Kooning’s wrist—still active in his late work, without help or hindrance from a brain gutted by senility—have not been inherited by anyone, nor will they be. They posed an odd problem for de Kooning himself, who in midcareer seemed to realize that his mastery overqualified him in a changing culture.
No one since 1950, including de Kooning, has painted a picture as consummately grand, as much an emblem of Western civilization in its glory, as Excavation, here paying a visit to the city of its creation from the Chicago Art Institute. Conservative critics still deplore the artist’s abandonment of his late-forties heights. But he saw that nothing important was left there. His ravening Women and then his blowsy abstract landscapes, of the late fifties, react to a time when everything old was winking out. For a while—as in a 1955 painting whose deadpan title, Composition, is made hilarious by a stumbling and dancing, falling-forward manner dis-composed to the nth degree—the very ruin of the world seemed to drive his brush.
It couldn’t last. As beautiful as they often are, the abstract landscapes strike me as manically overoptimistic in their rhetoric, presuming a level of poetic communication with viewers that lured him off-balance—and incidentally jinxed a generation of young painters, influenced by him, who tried to start from there. It took years of wood-shedding in The Springs, painting friendly nudes and engaging in one of history’s most profound excursions into mysteries of drawing, for de Kooning to recover his own wavelength. By 1967, with Two Figures in a Landscape, he had it. The rest, allowing for runs of so-so work now and then, is as much happiness as eyes can bear.
De Kooning’s keynote is a self-engulfment in painting that demands every resource of wit and skill not to become a mess. He regularly raises the ante of the game with clangorous colors, bizarre textures, and ripped and shredded compositions, seemingly at ease only on the lip of chaos. It makes the paintings inexhaustible. They keep happening as you look. They are eternally in the middle of something, not that you know what.
Being all middle, a de Kooning is the opposite of the typical artwork of the present day. Our young artists tend to give us things with pat premises and rote finishes, distinguished from mass-cultural commodities by piquant subject matter and aren’t-we-smart ironies. No one is to blame for the diminishment that such work represents. The decline of high culture that de Kooning accepted after Excavation was not about to stop with him. But what do we make of the fact that until just recently the old Dutchman was getting out of bed every morning and making miracles? He was our contemporary, breathing our air. Where were we? What were we thinking of?
Village Voice, November 1, 1994
“WOMEN” BY WILLEM DE KOONING AND JEAN DUBUFFET
When a boy wants to feel like a bad boy—most boys want to feel they are bad sometimes, others want to feel they are bad most times, and some are bad (beware these)—a reliable way is to draw a dirty picture of a woman, or Woman. Bad-boy drawings may be caricatures of, say, a despised teacher, if done well enough that anyone can tell, but normally they take the most economical linear route to the double message “female” and “stupid.” The transgression relieves the boy’s woe at being short, in all ways, on power. If the boy is a good boy, the drawing also makes him ashamed. The pleasure of being bad for a good boy isn’t worth the discomfort it costs, and he stops doing dirty drawings. Or he becomes an artist.
A grown-up straight male artist is perhaps a good boy who has made a vocation of maximizing the pleasure of being bad while minimizing its downside. He may dream of Pablo Picasso: full-time bad boy, shameless, who got all the girls and made the badness in good boys weep with envy. But he is not Picasso, and he is never going to be Picasso. He must face that. He makes art, or Art, in which furtive badness mysteriously informs goodness, or “quality.” In his heart, pleasure and shame dance the old dance. Usually that’s his story, in which nothing dramatic happens.
A show at the Pace Gallery spotlights a moment, around 1950, when the stories of two men who were hardly immature or powerless, in their respective milieus, took similar, very dramatic turns. Each man was deemed by many, including himself, the best painter on his scene. Independently, in New York and Paris, Willem de Kooning and Jean Dubuffet made series of pictures of Woman more vehement than anything comparable in big-time art before or since. I am interested in why that happened and, too, in a historical consequence of it: lasting damage to traditions of Romantic sincerity in painting.
De Kooning’s “Women” and Dubuffet’s “Corps de dames” were deliberately destructive, involving in the first case what de Kooning called “the female painted through all the ages, all those idols” and in the second what Dubuffet denounced as the association of the female body “with a very specious notion of beauty.” “Surely I aim for a beauty, but not that one,” he said. So notes of liberation were sounded, but from what? The beauty of Dubuffet’s Woman pictures—splayed, big-genitaled, tiny-headed, graffiti-flat totems in materials as thick as dirt—is alluvial. The beauty of de Kooning’s—figures with blindly staring eyes, one or more sets of ferocious teeth, and torsos hard to parse from welters of paint—is virtuosic.
De Kooning’s and Dubuffet’s travesties of a revered central theme of Western painting since the Renaissance still unsettle, partly because they seem so self-lacerating. A paradox of bad-boy drawings of Woman is germane: trying to reduce the female to a derisory cipher invests it with devouring force and confesses the boy’s puniness. De Kooning’s subject grows more fearsome the more he attacks her. His brushwork in these pictures is often called “slashing,” but the Woman is made of the swipes he takes at her. The effect of a Pygmalion despite himself is self-mocking.
I remember bad boys, the older ones on the playground who used obscene language and gestures to intimidate us younger ones with their sexual knowledge (never mind that they were surely bluffing). I remember humiliations that I wanted to hide but couldn’t. Responses of inferiority in other boys are the bad boy’s satisfaction. He doesn’t care if he is tipping the hand of his own abjection, if he can demoralize. Do I think that de Kooning and Dubuffet enacted bitter playground machismo? I do. It adds up when you know their career situations at the time.
They were relative elders on competitive scenes where public attention was just beginning and pecking orders were being worked out. De Kooning, forty-six years old in 1950, and Dubuffet, forty-nine, were verging on fame after years of frustration. Imagine that you are the more disaffected of the two, Dubuffet, until recently a wine merchant whose first stab at recognition, two decades earlier, was dismissed by art-world coteries. Now it’s your turn. Young artists in your war-groggy capital are trying to revive high-taste School of Paris aesthetics, and you think: pathetic. You will take the lads ...