|
|
'Now and Later' fails to offer viewers the full picture
By Peter Eleey
 |
| COURTESY YALE UNIVERSITY ART GALLERY |
| Matthew Barney's "Vaseline Dumbbell," complete with
refrigeration unit. |
|
Since the end of World War II, the Yale School of Art has held a highly
influential position in American art history. The Yale University Art Gallery
has attempted, as a recent addition to their exhbition "Then and Now and Later:
Art since 1945 at Yale," to survey current work of 15 of the more prominent
contributors of the period. The exhibition is curated by Joachim Pissarro,
Seymour H. Knox Jr. Curator of European and Contemporary Art. Thomas Crow,
Lehman Professor of the History of Art, has joined him for the "Now and Later"
segment. Although the show is potentially an exciting conclusion to a
grand-scale exhibition, the curators lack the necessary courage to choose
pieces which truly reflect the impact of Yale artists on contemporary art.
The works of Jessica Stockholder, Ann Hamilton, and Matthew Barney, BR '89,
are the highlights of the show's sculpture portion. Although their small pieces
are pleasant, they suffer from Pissarro and Crow's sideshow-like treatment
of this section. Hamilton, one of the youngest McArthur Grant recipients in
history, is best known for her large, powerful installations, including
covering a floor at the Dia Center with horse hair. Her smaller works, while
intricate, lack the impact of the big ones; they seem almost like sketches.
Ex-J.Crew model Barney is similarly underrepresented by his painfully small
"Vaseline Dumbbell"; I was left wondering why his latest Cremaster film wasn't
included.
Stockholder, too, is better recognized for her larger installations, but her
smaller exhibition piece holds its own with a cool, leftover, ready-made
aesthetic. Critics have raved about Stockholder, citing the importance of her
mediation between abstract painting and assemblage sculpture, and the
enticing nature of the tension she creates between colorful, luxurious
surfaces and their quotidian origins.
Beyond the installation sculpture, the show contains several examples of
paintings which test figurative boundaries. John Currin's "Pelletiere,"
cleverly hinting at clichés without succumbing to them, commands total
attention. Its style appears classical, yet the picture's only space results
from the tension of the matte ground and the glossy figure of a woman. The
mismatched eyes of Currin's subject are just as difficult to resolve.
Lisa Yuskavage is another strong presence in the show; her large painting
pulls off a dramatic still life space that reads like landscape. It would have
been much more interesting, however, to display one of her doll-like sex toy
female figures to contrast with Currin's more classical approach to a similar
topic. Byron Kim's wonderful portraits on handmade paper prove that identity
issues still provide ample material for visual discussion. Though the identity
of paintings in art has become a hackneyed concern, Kim's works lend a new
dimension to the controversy.
The photography is well-placed, with Dawoud Bey's parcelled portraiture
sharing a wall with Currin's Botticelli-ish girl (the description makes the
Venus connection for you). Lo Connor's sweeping large-format urban landscape is
exquisite in its detail, and seeing it is well worth the trip. I was
surprised, however, that rising star Phillip Lorca di Corcia's
interestingly-lit photos were not included in the show.
One wonders how Pissaro and Crow decided on these artists. Hamilton and a few
others seem like obvious choices, but it is unclear why many of the artists
represented are more deserving than some who were excluded. One of sculptor
Brian Tolle's cardboard desk multiples would have fit well, but perhaps he's
too young. Or are Sylvia Mangold (whose work is placed in the "Then and Now"
section) and Mel Bochner too old? Perhaps Bochner's fairly recent
restrospective at the Gallery precluded his participation in the show. I have
trouble discerning a significant thematic drive to the curatorial choices
which, if made more evident, might have helped answer such questions.
The cross-listings on the wall tags are gratuitous, and merely treat the
interested viewer to the type of didactic hand-holding usually reserved for a
petting zoo. The cu-ratorial descriptions read like memos from Pissarro to
Crow, deciding if they should have hung the subtle Wegner paintings next to
the fascinating Brice Marden down the hall. The title of the exhibition, which
has various permutations in Gallery literature, provides enough of a link
between this and the prior installment of the show. Yet regardless of the
curatorial mishaps, the works are still among the more exciting, and certainly
the most contemporary, that the Gallery has shown in the last few years. The
number of crucial Yale artists is far too large to contain in a room this size;
I wanted to see more.
Back to A&E...
|