A lot of people, including myself, will find something to agree with in this passage:
The paradox of any contemporary attempt to assert what art will be of permanent value for the future, or at least to give some artists a leg up on historical permanence -- which is what is attempted by the pseudo-pluralistic lists of best artists of the year that have proliferated in would-be trendy magazines, that is, magazines that believe they have the power to make an art permanent by prominently featuring it, as though their imprimatur was some kind of deus ex machina -- is that it has an entropic effect on the art it chooses to be the important One out of the unimportant Many. That is, prematurely declaring an art historically and thus permanently important -- as though its media reception was the arbiter of its importance and meaningfulness -- deadens it by displacing it into a remote future.
So I hate to go for the cheap shot, but I can't resist: can it be that the critic of historicity is the same guy who curated this show?
What's the context of the quote?
Kuspit's big gripe, if I understand it correctly, is that, since anything from a nice painting to a snow shovel to a urinal to a sliced cow can now be called art, people are defining art as 'that which is historically significant,' which no one is qualified to do. This much I agree with. Can you tell me what art will change art itself, as evident 20 years from now? You can't. No one can.
Kuspit's answer to this problem is a return to the old masters, as he sees them in Fischl, Yuskasavage, Currin et al. This I find absurd; the new old masters he writes of are mere mannerists playing old songs, for example Fischl's Freudian and Oedipal images. In this aspect, Kuspit's argument is akin to stating that, since punk rock is its own cliche, we should turn musically to the work of that great classicist, Spike Jones.
Kuspit's answer bespeaks weariness and boredom. He was great in the 80's. I'm glad he's showing us the problem now. He should stop right there.
Posted by: Bill Gusky | April 25, 2005 at 05:05 PM
The context for the quote was the article on Artnet that I linked to at the beginning of the post, and also linked to and started talking about below. As for your other comments, I don't entirely disagree. But remember, I said it was a cheap shot. I'm trying to get together a post that goes over my objections to Kuspit's article in more detail, so I'll try to put a more substantive reply in there. I hope to have that by tonight.
Posted by: JL | April 26, 2005 at 10:34 AM
For the record: offensive comments were left here by someone using a false identity. The comments regrettably were left here for some time, but have now been removed at the request of the person whose identity was falsely used. My apologies for hosting the comment.
Posted by: JL | March 28, 2006 at 11:53 AM