Over at Two Coats of Paint regular contributor David Carrier has words about “Building Models: The Shape of Painting,” currently up at the The Milton Resnick and Pat Passolf Foundation and curated by Saul Ostrow (who gets mentioned on this blog occasionally. Carrier titled his piece Art History Diagrammed.
In another essay I suggested any conception that Artists or the Arts or whoever needs a master narrative to give Art meaning lacked veracity and further that the reverse is true- any possible narrative only comes after we have a sense of the meaning of what we all did. So once again I was feeling a little cantankerous as I started to read, but not much, because critics’ and historians’ job is to try to throw this very structure around all the things. If you don’t truck with this interpretation of their role just open another tab and search for the word “history”. This article will be here when you get back.
Carrier notes that those of us old enough to remember Claude Levi-Strauss’s books on structural anthropology or Rosalind Krauss’ famed structuralist account of sculpture will appreciate the show. Their reason seemed good so I read the latter- both of these writers were covered in one or more of my undergrad classes, for certain. I confess I didn’t plow all the way through since I wanted to get back to David’s words and understand the connection, and you’ll hear from me at another time about Kraus’s expanded field concept (probably as a reason to revisit structures I have made up out of whole cloth myself).
I know most of the ten artists Ostrow has included, and one of the reasons for this blog’s existence is the joy I find in “discovering” creative practices, and so I will blog about those we haven’t discussed yet over the next week. Pat and Milton made important contributions to history obviously, and the foundation named for the same plays host to the subject exhibit which features work by Ron and Joanna and Joe, the latter being, in my opinion, a painter who was overdue for a retrospective and got one earlier this year at the Menil in Houston. The take away is that the grouping are creatives who have made their mark, which I note because I do think our read of their work, each time it happens going forward, is a read on ourselves. Not a justification per se, although over time maybe some creative re-telling… The point being the notion that this show is about the arc of history is not overreach, there is skin in the game.
Carrier understands this exhibit is part of a larger body of “work” by Ostrow to draw the contours of a very specific point in Art history, for Saul’s own reasons. Spoiler alert he thinks the conceit that there is a master narrative to be had is a bit forced. To generalize, I’d offer that any creative would agree that while we all take in what is going on around us that we also very much have our own ideas of what we are about and which I doubt anyone who calls themselves Artist with a capital “A” feels obliged to check with the literati regarding. As I said at the top, the contour often takes the distance of time anyway (which in fairness, Ostrow has) and any diagram is at best helpful and always artificial. tldr; my perspective about Carrier’s intent did not serve me in the end, as we seem to be aligned on that point. Also and, the show has some great looking work in it which he recognizes so if you’re NYC based go check it out.
Speaking of contours, I remember a moment in a critique in grad school which like too many of them for my taste went sideways, and in this case, involved a retort by yours truly that the expectation that Artists should consider at all times that their practice could and should be part of the canon was folly. I literally can’t remember what prof had goaded me into this exclamation, but it stands out as a moment when I realized that I truly believed Art as a historical project was over, or at least pointless (yes, “dead”) and that we should all proceed as lead by the spirit. And yes, I had recently finished a good number of Arthur Danto‘s essays (link is to a great overview vid by Amor Sciendi on his YouTube channel).
Clearly the volume of words I’ve left here and elsewhere illustrate that I do not feel the limited value of a master contour detracts from the value we can find in our own practices, or even in drawings lines of influence (before or after the act of creation) to our collective history. Just search for the word “Modernism” on this blog if you’re new and curious how I think about what I’m doing here in relation to events from our past. Cheers.
Painting After Art is Dead 
3 thoughts on “Countours”