by Roger Kimball (Encounter
Books, 2004)
© Donald Richardson, January, 2006
This informative and entertaining book is a potent critique of
post-modernist/post-colonialist art criticism, which is characterised
by what has become known as 'Theory' (capitalised and in quotes);
i.e., criticism that is based on socio-political attitudes derived
from the writings of people like Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault
and Ferdinand de Saussure rather than the study of art itself.
'Theory' is theory of a particular kind, which Kimball characterises
- brilliantly and deliciously - by phrases like 'reader-proof
verbiage', 'critical hubris', 'polysyllabic leftism', 'intellectual
futility', 'polymorphously perverse fantasy', 'hermeneutical
perversity', 'interpretation turned rancid', 'intellectual masturbation',
'anti-humanistic pedantry', a 'corrosive armoury of critical
sophistry' and 'de-civilization'. Most readers will be aware
of what he is referring to: it had been infecting writing about
art for decades.
Proponents of 'Theory', Kimball says, judge works 'according
to the peremptory diktats of self-proclaimed virtue', solipsistically
studying writings about works rather than the works themselves.
And they treat works of visual art as 'texts', the interpretation
of which is a matter for the viewer - any viewer, not the informed
viewer - rather than the originator or his/her authoritative
apologist. This 'drains art of its intrinsic dignity and pleasure'
and violates our experience of it. It is, he regrets, 'the triumph
of political correctness in art history'.
There are two aspects to this process - the 'spurious aggrandisement'
of those contemporary artists Kimball regards as not of the first
rank (Gilbert and George, Robert Mapplethorpe) - and the actual
'rape of the masters.' Kimball traces this to Walter Benjamin's
1936 essay 'The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction',
which treated photographs of works as more relevant to modern
life than the originals are. This was always a specious argument
because it considered the content of works bereft of their form,
with no direct evidence of their size, medium, texture or facture
- what some would say is the most relevant aspect of paintings
and sculptures. Kimball sees it as a Marxist/feminist strategy
for 'effectively sealing off students from any direct contact
with works of art, although he is unconcerned to explain why
this has happened.
Critical treatment of characteristic works by Peter Paul Rubens,
Diego Velasquez, Mark Rothko, Vincent van Gogh, Paul Gauguin,
Gustav Courbet, Winslow Homer and John Singer Sargent is analysed.
Each work is first described lucidly without access to 'Theory'
- usually in Kimball's own words, but often quoting acknowledged
authorities - and then depictions of these works by 'academic
fantasists' are deconstructed - which effectively turns 'Theory'
on itself! This not only makes highly amusing reading but provides
us with a modus operandi for our own reading of both works of
art and criticism.
But, admirable as this essay is, Kimball is too impatient about
critics who attempt to explain works as ineffable as a Rothko,
for example. And he dismisses Duchamp (who 'started a cottage
industry that is still going strong') too easily. This great
innovator's famous Fountain (1917) is much more than a urinal:
that it is signed 'R.Mutt' (mutter is German for mother) and
it is exhibited lying on its back are facts that should not be
facilely dismissed.
|