The new-to-me Chicago Art Blog takes up the case against the Washington Post's writeup of Amy Sillman's Hirshhorn show by Michael O'Sullivan. Fair enough—as I said before, O'Sullivan's review struck me as inaccurate and nothing more than that.
In fact the Post's major odd turn with this article was not assigning it to Blake Gopnik in the first place. Gopnik has not to my knowledge told readers that painting is dead. But in 2004 he wrote an essay that plainly suggested that death's just a heartbeat away. Given his argument on the situation of painting, I imagine that those readers who have been following along would like to know whether a show like Sillman's confirms or disproves his prejudices.
Posted by Kriston at April 18, 2008 1:41 PMI have been sitting on this post for a few days and I am wondering: What is it about the article that turns people off? It's as if people desire to begrudge a critic of his job, which should be sharing an educated opinion.
Perhaps Mr. O'Sullivan was not at the top of his game regarding continuity in this piece. Nonetheless, the venom surprises me, especially when it comes to his understanding of modern art theory. Mr. O'Sullivan is a professional and doesn't need me defending him so let me move on to my point.
I am familiar with Sillman's work. In February I read her Between Artists book with Gregg Bordowitz. I have seen the show at the Hirshhorn and in the past months I have heard her speak twice including the talk with Anne Ellegood at the Hirshhorn. I am no Sillman expert but I have developed my own opinion about her and her work.
Sillman seems fantastic, I imagine she is a great educator, and she is intellectual and charismatic. My guts say if she had a penis she would have been famous ages ago. With all that said, her new work is weaker then her earlier work. The completely abstract nature of these paintings is not as powerful as her work that more clearly show the forms and framework she is working within. Of most importance is the fact that she does consider herself a quasi-conceptual artist and those who ignore this fact are themselves ignorant of her work history. Sillman often speaks about artists (even painters) working conceptually, the importance of an artist�s perspective, and studio practice. I differ from Michael in that I believe she is earnest in her project, which leaves me little option but to "buy it." I am simply saying you don�t have to enjoy it to understand it and people get defensive when something they �like�* attracts scrutiny. From my perspective Mr. O�Sullivan shared his thoughts on a body of work that looks transitional in nature and shared his thoughtts. Why are people damning him for it? Am I missing something?
* The word like is despicable and should not be used when talking about art.
