| Title | : | Nothing If Not Critical: Selected Essays on Art and Artists |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 014016524X |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9780140165241 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Paperback |
| Number of Pages | : | 448 |
| Publication | : | First published April 1, 1990 |
Nothing If Not Critical: Selected Essays on Art and Artists Reviews
-
Outstanding collection of nearly one hundred essays written in the 1980s, mostly for Time Magazine, on art and artists from Holbein, Goya, Degas, Whistler, van Gogh right up to the big names of the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s, by the leading art critic at the time in America, outspoken, rough-and-ready tough-guy Robert Hughes (1938-2012).
If you are familiar with his 1970s documentary The Shock of the New, you know he has a hyper-perceptive eye for art as well as a thorough command of art history and cultural currents. If not, then these essays will introduce you to one of the freshest and liveliest voices ever to enter the house of art.
To provide a good strong taste of Robert Hughes’ style, below are quotes from his spirited essay on Andy Warhol, one of the few artists included in this collection that he really didn’t like.
Robert Hughes on Andy Warhol’s using everyday objects like soup cans, Brillo boxes or photos of Marilyn Monroe: “The tension this set up depended on the assumption, still in force in the sixties, that there was a qualitative difference between the perceptions of high art and the million daily diversions and instructions issued by popular culture. Since then, Warhol has probably done more than any other living artist to wear that distinction down, but while doing so, he has worn away the edge of his work.”
On Andy’s quest for celebrity: “Inspired by the example of Truman Capote, he went after publicity with the voracious singlemindedness of a feeding bluefish. And he got it in abundance, because the sixties in New York reshuffled and stacked the social deck: press and television, in their pervasiveness, constructed a kind of parallel universe in which the hierarchical orders of American society – vestiges, it was thought, but strong ones, and based on inherited wealth –were replaced by the new tyranny of the “interesting.” Its rule had to do with the rapid shift of style and image, with the assumption that all civilized life was discontinuous and worth only a short attention span: better to be Baby Jane Holzer than the Duchesse de Guermantes.”
On Andy and television: “Above all, the working-class kid who had spent so many thousands of hours gazing into the blue, anesthetizing glare of the TV screen, like Narcissus into his pool, realized that the cultural moment of the mid-sixties favored a walking void. Television was producing an affectless culture.”
On Andy’s mass produced art: “Thus his paintings, tremendously stylish in their rough silk-screening, full of slips, mimicked the dissociation of gaze and empathy induced by the mass media: the banal punch of tabloid newsprint, the visual jabber and bright sleazy color of TV, the sense of glut and anesthesia caused by both. Three dozen Elvises are better than one.”
On Andy as THE artist of the Ronald Reagan years: “How can one doubt that Warhol was delivered by Fate to be the Rubens of this administration, to play Bernini to Reagan’s Urban VIII? On the one hand, the shrewd old movie actor, void of ideas but expert at manipulation, projected into high office by the insuperable power of mass imagery and secondhand perception. On the other, the shallow painter who understood more about the mechanisms of celebrity than any of his colleagues, whose entire sense of reality was shaped, like Reagan’s sense of power, by the television tube. Each, in his way, coming on like Huck Finn; both obsessed with serving the interests of privilege. Together, they signify a new moment: the age of supply-side aesthetics.”
I read this Robert Hughes essay on Andy Warhol back when it was first published in 1982. Loved every word and really was on Hughes’ vibe since I recoil from anything smacking of mass culture, things like television, celebrity, glamour or glitz.
But then one spring afternoon in 1990 I had a shocking experience - I walked into a downtown New York City gallery and saw for the very first time original Andy Warhol silkscreens, one of Hermann Hesse and the other of Mickey Mouse.
I could almost not believe my eyes: the art was so stunningly beautiful and brimming over with vitality, it almost put me on my knees. Incredible. I couldn’t take my eyes off these silkscreens; I was riveted to the spot for a good long while.
For me, this experience underscored how the visual arts are ultimately a personal experience of standing before the original and using and trusting our eyes. Sure, art critics, even the great art critics, can speak about cultural and historical context, about the artist’s biography and the artist’s influences and intent, even offering comments and insights on specific works, but we are best putting theories and criticism aside when we engage with the work one-on-one. Who knows what magic may take place?
-
The majority of this book, besides the introduction and the last few essays, consists of reviews of art shows that Hughes published in times magazine in the early-to-mid 80s. His style of criticism is perfect - it finds that wonderful balance of historical context, biographical information, and (the part that so many critics miss) astute observations in front of the work itself. One of the main themes of his writing is that great art is built on history, rather than (in the prevailing myth of modernism) trying to tear it down. Not surprisingly, this leads to a pessimism on the future of art - combine the decline of art education, an ahistorical attitude on the part of many artists, and the absurd consumerism of the 80s art market (eerily similar to what's happening in Chelsea today), and even the most talented artists are at a disadvantage.
It's interesting to compare this book to the equally fantastic Unnatural Wonders, but Arthur C. Danto. While Danto agrees with Hughes assessment of the end of art history - he sees this as an important development. Unconstrained from the "weight" of history, a new pluralism has swept into the art world - and artists have an unprecedented level of freedom. Personally, I tend towards Hughes outlook - without a framework (and only the most disciplined artists can impose their own framework without history), artistic freedom tends to degenerate into chaos. But it's hard not to appreciate Danto's optimism.
Whatever your opinions on the future of art, Robert Hughes provides an important lesson on how to look at and think about art. Having just finished his book, I feel like I need to spend hours, if not days, in the Met - looking at all the older art I tend to walk by, and think about where my own work has come from and where it's going. -
I enjoyed this more than I expected to though I admit to skimming a few of the reviews towards the end since I didn't recognize the artist. With no images, his critiques don't mean much if you don't know the work and its context. Hughes doesn't seem to actively dislike a lot (Thomas Hart Benson, Julian Schnabel and Warhol are three) and does try to see what is good in the art that he doesn't otherwise like. I was surprised at how broad his interests were--assuming as I did that he was conservative. I'm trying to picture the reaction of your average American (most of these were written for Time Magazine) in reading some of these reviews. That makes me feel he was being pretty daring for a popular reviewer.
Remembering as I do the fuss over Basquiat, I appreciated his analysis of how he was fawned on while better African-American artists were ignored by the critics. He can be brutally funny as when he writes, "Confronted by such puffery, the cynic might conclude that if the systeme de la mode likes anything better than a hot new young artist, it is a dead hot new young artist."
He can be really funny in a way that would have been inappropriate in another, more academic, setting as when he lampoons Baudrillard's book America.
Overall I enjoyed these essays and thought they were very good for reviews written for a magazine like Time.
Here are the quotes I saved:
"Thomas Eakins"
"He was not passive. He painted what he saw--but he chose what to see." 121
"Henri Matisse in Nice"
Matisse's work seen in this concentration, proves once more that in painting, innovation means nothing without a vital sense of the past." 173
"Arshile Gorky"
"[H]e had seen too much political horror as a child to imagine that canvas could interpose itself between history and its victims." 222
"Julian Schnabel"
"'Good conversation is scarce,' he complains, 'and there are so few people who know how to make art.' Indeed; and one less than he thinks." 305
"Jean-Michel Basquiat: Requiem for a featherweight"
"Confronted by such puffery, the cynic might conclude that if the systeme de la mode likes anything better than a hot new young artist, it is a dead hot new young artist." 312
"Art and Money"
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money." Samuel Johnson 388
"On the whole, money does artists more good than harm. The idea that one benefits from cold water, crusts and debt collectors is now almost extinct, like belief in the reformatory power of flogging." 388 -
Schnabel's a bit dazed but getting up, what's Hughes gonna do-OH! IT'S THE PEOPLE'S ELBOW!!
-
Whether or not one agrees with Hughes's critique of the current art market (or that of the 1980s, when this book came out), I don't think one can find much fault with the depth and breadth of his knowledge of art history. "Nothing If Not Critical" serves as a very good survey of Western art. The book, unfortunately, has no illustrations, and a few artists whose work he didn't write essays about are probably missing, but, boy, the writing is wonderful, and Hughes's love of art is evident throughout.
-
it's a brilliant critical work and inspiring read with sharp insights and many new ideas and information for any art lover.
each chapter is a paper column, therefore the writing is really condensed and it took me a long time to finish the book. you also better read it along with an art app or website along, because if you don't know the artist he's writing about you'd get bored really quick.
now when the art scene is gradually moving to the east (China, Japan Saudi Arabia and Dubai), this book might have some serious value as it describes the high times of new york and the Soho. -
this man is so angry its fantastic
-
This book started off great, I loved the introduction because it spoke to the implausibility of making it as an artist in New York. That to become an artist, you had to move & somehow subsist on breadcrumbs, and how it wasn't a realistic vision any longer.
Then, there was an abrupt switch from the introduction to old critiques written for newspapers & magazines from the 80s. I firmly think the book would've been vastly improved if it hadn't been formed out of a bunch of random articles & instead selected the articles more carefully and treated them as a book. You know, perhaps with some pictures as well, considering they are critiquing ART. I had to switch between google & the book several times per each artist to see exactly what he was critiquing.
Not to mention, some of the artists & the shows were simply boring, or made virtually no impact. Why those articles were included is beyond me.
Also, the not one, but two articles on Picasso... lord help me. I'm tired of hearing about him. I'm bored of the misogynist. "Goddesses or doormats," my ass.
And on that subject, there was an article where Hughes quotes an artist and how the artist "saw & painted women like animals or objects" and in the same breath went, "but he wasn't a misogynist." Sounds pretty misogynistic to me.
There were a few new artists that I liked and added to a list to look at and that was beneficial. Also, the scathing chapters towards the end on two different artists were very enjoyable reads, but I did skim through the architecture bits at the end. Why those were stuck in there like an afterthought, who knows.
Lastly, I loved this quote, "We are now surfeited with mini-Lacans and mock Foucaults. To write direct prose, lucid and open to comprehension, using common language, is to lose face." No matter how much I disagreed with the layout of the book, I did appreciate Hughes' straightforward writing style. -
I have to say I am disappointed. There is more sensationalism in this book than there is critique. Yes, the essays were meant to amuse as much as to inform, but there is entirely too much name dropping and vague unnatributed references here. For the most part, I agree with his assessment of the artists and art events depicted, but I don't always trust his 'cultural facts'. He doesn't always accurately portray the mainstream opinions. Instead he passes off his imprecise information and opinions off as law. My first clue was his offhand comment about Brideshead being vulgar in a review of an English show. Maybe he meant popular, there was a time vulgar did mean that, but either way, imprecise. And then there is the essay on Warhol in which he portrays Warhol as a fraud. Yes? And? Andy was clear that he knew that. No mystery there, except for the uninitiated. (I can imagine Andy beatifically smiling at his accusations). Though I agree with many of his basic opinions on lesser known artists, about Courbet and death for example, I think he had at best a superficial cultural education, in which he did not understand many of the cultural references he made. I am struck by the idea that many art-mongers and makers loved him and revere him still. Perhaps because unlike many others, he actually did have a classical education of sorts, which many art makers do not and so could talk interesting smack, compare statues of Sherman, while referencing Sherman; whereas others could not compare not having the breath of education. (Yes, There was a time in which artists were educated, had to be in history, literature and aesthetics). Now all they have to do is claim to be post-modern and that absolves ignorance. In the land of the blind, this one eyed man was king.
-
If you are art history knowledgeable this book will give you a good chuckle and increase your everyday cynicism. If you love smack-talking art reviewers, R.Hughes is your man.
-
This was a collection of essays on various artists and art movements/exhibits, taken primarily from Hughes' numerous contributions to Time magazine (he was the resident art critic for the magazine). The book was broken into sections, categorising the artists by period and location, which made it easier to juxtapose the works of contemporary artists who lived in the same continent. It focused mostly on 19th and 20th-Century Art, though there was also a short section titled "Ancestors" that covered select artists from before this period.
The essays were sharp, concise and very critical. Most art essays by other critics had a propensity to wax lyrical about the artist, but I appreciated that Hughes was brutally honest in his analysis, and called out the artist when they were guilty of producing shit, muddled or unclear art. His pieces also covered the artist's oeuvre in a concise yet comprehensive manner, though it was quite touch and go with a lot of the essays. Resultantly, I found these essays quite difficult to follow when I didn't already have prior knowledge of the artist being covered, leading to me skipping the essays that covered artists I was unfamiliar with.
The quality of the essays were excellent, though. I particularly enjoyed his pieces on Magritte, Pollock, Hopper and Rockwell, as they were able to capture the essence of the artist's style, inspiration, and influence on the modern art scene, all in the span of a 3-4 page essay. I also found that his essays on later American artists were stronger. Pick this up if you're interested in reading more about the 19th-20th century art scene, as this is the strongest collection of art essays that I've read (I admittedly haven't read much though) from this period. -
i had to skip all the artists i wasn’t familiar with bc it was too taxing to look up everything on google. so i didn’t really finish this in my obsessive brain but whatever. more of the (high quality) same although i like it more when his thoughts connect to one another as in the shock of the new/american visions. the man can really write. i can’t remember many specific things in his books but i feel i’ve emerged with a much better understanding of painting than i used to, and when i go to the museum i feel i have the critical tools to understand and engage with work in a way i couldn’t as a naif. now i understand contrast and balance, formality and dissonance etc. he has brought art off the wall and into the world for me, so to speak. still, i wish there were pictures.
-
This a marvellous book full of fascinating commentary on a whole range of artists. It really inspired me to look up some artists I was't familiar with as well as to revisit some I was. He had a beautiful and brutal turn of phrase which cut through any hype to get to the core of the artist's integrity and ability (or lack thereof). Highly recommended.
-
It felt like this collection of art show reviews was put together to pay for a second home. Sorry, Hughes is amusing but this is really dated.
-
Robert Hughes, crítico de arte de la prestigiosa revista Time, reúne en A toda crítica casi un centenar de sus mejores ensayos sobre el tema, que corroboran brillantemente la afirmación de Martin Filler: <>. Desde Leonardo hasta Warhol, de Norman Rockwell a Pablo Picasso, pasando por la más atractiva gama de artistas y épocas, ya se trate de Goya, Hockney, Monet, De Kooning, Rodin, Motherwell, Reynolds, González, Dalí o tantos otros, Robert Hughes no se limita a analizar la obra de ellos surgida, sino que la contextualiza, desplegando ante nuestros ojos las condiciones socioculturales e históricas en que se producen, nos habla de movimientos y tendencias, de políticos y cineastas, de literatura y antropología, y lo hace con pasión y opiniones contundentes.
https://auladefilosofia.net/2007/07/2... -
Though I read this book in 1990, I love it still. Hughes discusses artists from Caravaggio to Degas, and Sargent, René Magritte, Picasso, Pollock, Hockney and more. Most of these pieces were written for Time Magazine and he brought a deep sense of history and visual memory to a discussion of art that reached masses of people. He looked with his eyes, his mind and his heart. He searched out authenticity and disparaged the phoney or contrived. He looked for meaning and beauty, found it where he could and had no time for the rest. I love the fluidity of his words, the clarity of his argument and the solid base of looking and knowledge it rests on. He asked that artists have discipline and skills or at least to work within the skills they do have. He could be harsh, critical in fact, but he offered his reasons and that's fair and fun. He did art a service. He made us think.
-
I can't say I agreed with everything Hughes says in this collection of essays, but his occasional bias is easy to detect and his infrequently pompousness easy to forgive because he frequently has incredible insight into the artists, movements, and art markets that his essays examine.
As a BFA student, I think the book is an valuable glimpse at artists' work which every art student should be well versed in. And aside from all that, its truly interesting and an easy read! -
Robert Hughes is such a great writer. He loves art and thinks it is important. He hates Robert Mapplethorpe.
-
A terrrific sttraight up read about a collection of contemporary artists and the art market
-
His common sense approach, learned arrogance and discerning wins the day...as usual
-
709 H894n 1992
