A hearty thank you for your manning the watchtower and then generously keeping us apprised of the intellectual and aesthetic convulsions that are plaguing the intolerant and illiberal left. As one who continues to toil in the belly of post-truth academic beast your observations and analysis allow me to better prepare for the next wave of pontification from the Arts and Humanities faculty who, in the words of Patrick Doorly from The Truth about Art, 'more closely resemble amateur political scientists, uninformed sociologists, incompetent anthropologists, mediocre philosophers, and arbitrary cultural studies practitioners' than the scholars of the past.' The saddest reality is that this progressive linguistic power grab does a great disservice to Odita's nuanced color sensibilities, his compositional inventiveness, and his impressive body of work.
Thanks, as always, for mych food for thought. I am interested in your thoughts on race and racism. There's a new hegemony on the move - if one can have multiple hegemonies. "Anti-racism" in the academy and in much of the visible art world has become something to trade with, not a call for real democratic evaluation, but a new power move. But I can't agree from the evidence here that critiquing Clement Greenberg equates with antisemitism- no offense, but that seems a little IXKendi-esque. But you are spot on about that painting, "Global".
Jan 25, 2023·edited Jan 25, 2023Liked by Franklin Einspruch
Oh, dear. How very tiresome, but of course inevitable and practically obligatory. Still, I suppose if one lives by fashion, one might as well flaunt being fashionable. It's not just that Yau is useless, but that he's embarrassing. Trying too hard is never elegant and typically counterproductive--it is off-putting, not to say cringeworthy, rather than persuasive.
Regarding Odita's (or anybody's) artist statement, suffice it to say that the only thing that truly matters is the artist's work as such, which must stand by and speak for itself, quite apart from what the artist thinks or says about it. If the art in question doesn't deliver, the artist's "statement" is moot, meaning irrelevant. As for Odita "stepping away," he doesn't seem to have stepped too far from Bridget Riley, and being adequate or workmanlike is hardly the same as being compelling.
I just followed the link to the Yau piece in question, and the images he chose to show of Odita pieces look like anything but the work of "a major artist." Maybe Yau chose poorly, but I expect that's not the real problem. I've seen nothing by Odita that says "major artist," but then Yau is hardly a major critic.
A hearty thank you for your manning the watchtower and then generously keeping us apprised of the intellectual and aesthetic convulsions that are plaguing the intolerant and illiberal left. As one who continues to toil in the belly of post-truth academic beast your observations and analysis allow me to better prepare for the next wave of pontification from the Arts and Humanities faculty who, in the words of Patrick Doorly from The Truth about Art, 'more closely resemble amateur political scientists, uninformed sociologists, incompetent anthropologists, mediocre philosophers, and arbitrary cultural studies practitioners' than the scholars of the past.' The saddest reality is that this progressive linguistic power grab does a great disservice to Odita's nuanced color sensibilities, his compositional inventiveness, and his impressive body of work.
Thanks, as always, for mych food for thought. I am interested in your thoughts on race and racism. There's a new hegemony on the move - if one can have multiple hegemonies. "Anti-racism" in the academy and in much of the visible art world has become something to trade with, not a call for real democratic evaluation, but a new power move. But I can't agree from the evidence here that critiquing Clement Greenberg equates with antisemitism- no offense, but that seems a little IXKendi-esque. But you are spot on about that painting, "Global".
Oh, dear. How very tiresome, but of course inevitable and practically obligatory. Still, I suppose if one lives by fashion, one might as well flaunt being fashionable. It's not just that Yau is useless, but that he's embarrassing. Trying too hard is never elegant and typically counterproductive--it is off-putting, not to say cringeworthy, rather than persuasive.
Regarding Odita's (or anybody's) artist statement, suffice it to say that the only thing that truly matters is the artist's work as such, which must stand by and speak for itself, quite apart from what the artist thinks or says about it. If the art in question doesn't deliver, the artist's "statement" is moot, meaning irrelevant. As for Odita "stepping away," he doesn't seem to have stepped too far from Bridget Riley, and being adequate or workmanlike is hardly the same as being compelling.
I just followed the link to the Yau piece in question, and the images he chose to show of Odita pieces look like anything but the work of "a major artist." Maybe Yau chose poorly, but I expect that's not the real problem. I've seen nothing by Odita that says "major artist," but then Yau is hardly a major critic.