Robert Motherwell’s Academicism: A Review

IMG_0587

“Robert Motherwell and the New York School at Hunter,” The Bertha and Karl Leubsdorf Art Gallery, Hunter College, February 12-May 2, 2015.

Robert Motherwell was a central figure within the New York School of Abstract Expressionism. A lyrical painter, his works celebrate the dynamism of paint itself; they are grand, gestural and heroic. Their value, however, lies more often than not in the economy by which this heroism is achieved. One wonders, when contemplating what I regard as his best works—works such as his Pink Nude with Bowed Head (1958) and Chi Ama, Crede (1962)—how Motherwell knew to stop when he did: to allow this particular balance of disorder and finish.

In general, however, there’s a little too much finesse to almost everything Motherwell did. The spontaneity we tend to associate with Mothewell is often too carefully contrived; there’s a practiced flare that comes across as overly stylized, excessively rehearsed. That’s why the few paintings I admire strike me as so good. They’ve managed to corral the twee sentiment that so many of his paintings unleash toward something somehow more faulty, more contingent and careless—careless enough to make you appreciate its emergence despite all odds.

But these few successes are not what makes Motherwell worth writing about. What makes him worth writing about is the extraordinary role he played as an educator, organizer and publisher within and for the postwar New York scene. Continue reading

Bitmapped Form*

All analyses of art might be analyses of relationality, where form distends in time, in encounter, at some distance from an author, but never severed from it—might be, if it weren’t for the fact that questions of relationality often get cleaved in two along disciplinary lines: there are those who pay attention to form, and those who pay attention to reception (with those who focus on process not usually sparking across that gap). Form seems to name something in the work, thus intrinsic, sequestered, unsullied (see Brinkema, The Forms of the Affects, 2014, for the most extreme articulation of this claim). Reception seems to name something that comes after, more social, more muddled, therefore necessarily less formal. Formalism seems, in this sense, to name the practice of eschewing reception, where reception is often reduced to something flat and empirical like experience (see Joan W. Scott, “The Evidence of Experience,” Critical Inquiry v.17, n.4, 1991). We need, now and probably always, a concept that connects those realms of discourse, that sees them, not just polemically but historically, as having never been untethered. Continue reading