Every now and then a comment turns up that, should I reply, could produce a good commentary. One such comment came from “Tino” aka Joanne Greenbaum who was vexed over her treatment in two of my reviews for shows at the Blackston Gallery and at the Jane Hartsook Gallery. Fair enough. Here is her comment:
Above: The Vessel show at Blackston Gallery, New York.
“This is the same garth Clark who reviewed but did not see the show at jane hartsook gallery nor did he even see this show. These reviews are written from press releases. He obviously has an agenda that the commenters agree with. It is ridiculous to take him seriously when he has not seen both shows he speaks about. The artists should feel flattered that the work is so despised. It certainly gets an old guy garth clark sitting on his chair all worked up.”
Joanne, you got me. I am guilty as charged. But it is not a secret.
First, not every post on an exhibition is a review. We do use the press releases without taking a critical stance to announce a show’s presence. Most publications do this.
A lot of reviewing is done from images. For instance, in an art book review there is often tough criticism of the subject’s art. Does the reviewer have to actually see every illustrated work in the flesh? No, not if the writer has the knowledge to make a reasoned judgment.
Group shows are routinely chosen via images. High-priced art is sold to collectors via photography. Magazines routinely praise art they have never seen beyond the press package. So we have a double standard. Aesthetic judgment by photograph is perfectly fine if it results in a show, profit or praise. If I called you the Great New George E. Ohr, we would not be having this conversation.
I decided that I could write about the Blackston and Hartsook shows (the former’s installation view is above) without visiting. Let me explain what I did to produce the two posts and then people can decide if I was cavalier.
The decision to review a show in absentia is always made very carefully. The qualities, pro or con, have to be very obvious in the visuals or the writer has to have an intimate knowledge of the subject.
There are rules. I don’t make sweeping judgments about immersive installations for the (obvious) reason that one cannot immerse by proxy. If the objects cannot easily be read by images (and some can’t) I give that show a pass. But now we also have video walk-throughs, which takes some of the risk out of reviewing from afar.
In both shows on which you were included I was in conversation with several other people that had seen the show. These are critical voices I have known for some time and whose opinions I trust. We talk and they essentially critique my critique.
I have (because I am so old) probably handled more contemporary ceramics than anyone in the world except for my partner, Mark Del Vecchio. We ran a business selling images of ceramics (in the slide era) to schools. I have written and contributed to nearly 80 illustrated books and curated more than 600 ceramics exhibitions. Early in my career I did much of my own photography. I believe I know how to accurately present objects in a photograph.
When I decide to go ahead with such a review, I Google extensively, something I can do for hours. I look at the artists’ work in their primary mediums and view some previous shows at their galleries. Sometimes a ceramic that does not impress bursts into life when viewed in the wider context of that artist’s oeuvre. Then I search for other ceramics by artists that are not in the show for comparison, in case these are not up to their usual standard. The images are enlarged, studied and the CFile team weighs in with an opinion.
I usually end up with more than 100 images in each research file before I choose about 15 and begin writing. If I have doubt, I get on the phone. I will ask the gallery to send me many more images or to describe something more fully. In this case there was no doubt. This was not a close call.
The above is more due diligence than one gets from many reviewers who breeze into a gallery, glance at the work without seeing it, make a few notes and write a trivial descriptive review.
I did not write the review from the press releases. I took factual information from them, which we all do. This is why the release is sent to the press in the first place. When we take something from a release that is opinion we include the line “the gallery states that.” My opinions are my own and the release did not suggest that the shows were ceramic detritus, I did.
Our weekly is read by a sophisticated, art-savvy audience and their agreement with opinions is based on deep knowledge, not necessarily bias as you suggest. (Although all art criticism is biased to some degree.) I admit that some of the applause comes from knee jerk rejections against any ceramics coming to the fine arts, which I find unfortunate and disturbing. But all communities have a right wing fringe.
Joanne, the reason we publish the Little Clay Shop of Horror series (and there are more to come) has very little to do with you specifically. Because fine art is new to ceramics, the critical standards are not finely honed and ignorance of the medium in the art media is widespread and, at times, jaw-dropping (no, plaster is not ceramic). We at CFile will not allow poor work to become an acceptable standard. I am sure you feel the same way about painting.
Maybe you think I am just an old man, a craft-world hick with no knowledge of art? Fine, art is as much my field as the crafts. I am just about to finish major books on Lucio Fontana, Ai Weiwei and a 100th birthday volume for Duchamp’s Fountain from 1917. So dealing with your art is not a stretch, believe me.
Nor are my tastes calcified. I have been the most active champion in ceramic art for new work by non-specialists for decades. And I have taken a lot of flack for this stance. I have argued for Sterling Ruby and for others who work in clay, like the transgender performance artist, Cassils. This is work, with due respect, that is more radical than yours.
Further, you are not unknown to me. I have followed “new abstraction,” as Saatchi called it, for some time. Garth Weiser is a friend and lead me into that arena. To be honest, I really disliked your paintings until recently when the acres of white began to disappear, an opinion I share with Roberta Smith. This painting, from the article in HyperAllergic is a beauty, enormously powerful, architectonic and cogent. The progress has earned my respect.
Your ceramic work and most of the others in the show is often a newcomers cliché. It’s the Dribble Glaze, Petal, Pancake and Tendril School widely produced in children’s classes and in adult education. It is something a neophyte makes because clay takes on these forms so readily. Pushing it to become art is not easy.
I can show hundreds of similar examples made by newbies to clay from the fine arts over the last 15 years. They all hold out their offerings with arrogant pride as though they have reinvented the wheel. For those of us who know our field this unwarranted self-importance is galling.
The first time round I was seduced by your sensational use of color. But later, in my mind, I peeled away the polychrome layering, and was not satisfied with the naked forms. When I saw images of unpainted works by you my view was confirmed. Weak form.
I can see why they might delight some viewers in the short term. As Ken Johnson said about your paintings in the New York Times in 2001, they had immediate charm but lacked staying power. That cannot be said about your painting today, the growth has been significant.
So if it took your painting 15 years to come fully into its own, what makes you think ceramics will get there any faster? How long have you been working in the medium and how many hours per week?
Getting to the point where your ceramics reaches a level of eloquence that deserves center stage will take time and more respect and feeling for the medium. Also, because you can paint does not mean that there is an immediate transfer of one talent into another medium. Just because a work survives the kiln (and for some of the pieces on the shows that was indeed a miracle) does not entitle it to a spotlight. Be more selective. Some ceramic works of yours are really amateur hour.
In closing here is a work of yours that I think really sings; the form and the color enjoy an intimate rapture. These high points are why, as I have said before, you should stay with the medium.
Lastly, we ran an opinion test in Facebook and asked whether it was acceptable to review a show one had never seen. Most who had not seen the reviews backed you and said no. The majority of those who looked at the reviews backed us. We will continue to do occasional reviews from images, but (as always) only when we feel we are on firm ground.
It was good to get this off my ancient chest.
Good luck with your kiln romance.
Garth Clark is the Chief Editor of CFile.
Any thoughts about this post? Share yours in the comment box below.
Thank you for being one of the great voices of the ceramic arts!
Whether someone makes art using paint, or clay or elephant shit—that artist is first beholder and first critic. And the piece is only as good as that artist’s critical eye. I’m grateful that Garth has raised his voice about the common failure of that critical eye when two-dimensional artists discover clay and revert to their inner fifth-grader. Somehow, it’s okay to mess around with that pliant, forgiving stuff, call it good, and bring the result home to Mom. Or, in this case, curators, who are no more discerning than Mom (and, like certain Moms, seem to think that this crap looks just fine displayed on garage-sale furniture). As someone who’s worked and looked seriously at clay for decades, I find this particularly American assumption that a developed eye and practiced hand somehow doesn’t apply to clay as insulting as it is disheartening. Garth’s reply to Ms. Greenbaum was thoughtful, wise, and kind beyond the call of duty. Thank you, Garth, for keeping The Little Shop of Clay Horrors open for business. Unfortunately, we really need it.
I think Garth makes an excellent point that when an established artist in another medium works in ceramics, not all of their artistry transfers. Ceramics, like any other medium requires a lengthy commitment of time and focus if the artist wants to communicate effectively. But the medium is so responsive to touch that a strong bond can form very quickly which can mask weak technique and form. Picasso’s ceramics in my view rival his best painting, but this is because he allowed skilled potters to execute the sturdy forms which he then used as 3-d canvasses. Are they his ceramics? Yes, but they are collaborative works. Reviewing a show in absentia will always be risky proposition, but I feel Garth has defended his diligence here.
Media hopping can be a lot of fun for artists, even artists who are well-established in a particular medium, and it seems that the contemporary art world wants artists who work in a variety of media. But I think Garth is quite right to point out that the ceramic medium (or any other for that matter) takes a great deal of time and commitment to become a proficient and effective communicator. Certainly there is some transfer of artistry from one medium to the next, but without a solid cornerstone (strong form), the work may not be in line with that artist’s primary medium. Picasso (who is not one of my favorite painters) got around this by decorating pots made by skilled producers who could give him a variety of canvasses on which to work his magic. I think some of these pots are as good as his best painting.
Garth thank you for taking the time to so carefully explain your labor intensive process for reviewing work. You are also a superb craftsman of words with wisdom guiding them. Your explanation of criticism should be helpful not only to this artist but many others aspiring to have quick success.
Right on, Garth. And please stop referring to yourself as an “ancient”. No one in the field of ceramic history and criticism is more au courant, than you are.
Thank you. Your ability with words is always refreshing and invigorates the mind.
After teaching ceramics at University level for over 15 years in Australia, I have to agree with Garth’s criticism. I love working with good painters – they usually have great, fresh ideas – but I am tired of going to contemporary art exhibitions and seeings crap ceramics and sculpture being praised as fine art. It just diminishes the whole skill base of ceramics, which in my opinion takes a minimum of 2 years to achieve a reasonable level of competency. I love the fact that ceramics is finally being moved out its rigid box of rules. I have always been an anarchist myself – and rarely receive praise from the ceramics community for the work I produce. I have encouraged my students to be free, open, expressive and and above all to make meaningful work – but the DYS movement of ceramics is a sad state affairs, and someone needs to put the lid in it. Thankyou Garth for your truthful commentary. I have to laugh though – this work reminds me of American abstract expressionist ceramics (c.1950’s), which I / we think is truly wonderful – and of course Clark and Del Vecchio are The Authority of this era. And yes I also believe Joanne has talent – but needs to leave her work on her studio shelves for a bit longer – give some pieces to her family and friends (which she can later smash or steal as she chooses), and learn a bit of appreciation and understanding for the materials she uses. Let’s face it Joanne, if people are talking about you, it can’t be a bad thing.
Despite running the risk of sounding cliche… I swear to god, before even reading a single word of this article – your response – I enlarged the first photo of her work and my instinctive inference, based on this article’s title, was, “Why is a Junior High School girl so worked up about a disagreeable review? After all, she was both lucky enough to get her first few pieces into an actual show, and to have somehow caught the attention of an art critic of such high caliber to even bother giving her the time of day. She should be counting herself extremely fortunate on both accounts.” Obviously, it doesn’t take a mental giant to figure out that what I’m getting at is first time Jr High art students can, quite literally, produce the same quality/style as showcased in her pieces. I’d advize her to lean on her paintings for juried and public consumption, and do ceramics as a personal hobby until they no longer resemble work that my kid sister can produce. That, and just be happy any gallery is willing to show her work at all.
Not only do I defer to Garth Clark’s expertise, but I so enjoy his writing as well.
What a wonderful response! Critique of such a giant of an art world as Garth Clark deserves very close attention and not a snappy irrelevant comment such as the one Joanne Greenbaum allowed herself.
How utterly kind of Garth Clark to take the time to explain his credentials, his reasons for reviewing an unseen exhibition, and to give constructive criticism. Always the consummate professional.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this! Garth, I would be more than happy to have you eloquently skewer my ceramics should I be in a similar position and decide to be another painter who also makes horrendous things in clay. Cheers:)
Thank you for the original reviews and thank you for this . Bravo
well said!
I have complete respect for your knowledge. However, if you do not see in person, do not write a review. Unseen opinion is invalid in me view. And a lot of ceramics that are perfectly made are boring. Technique is unimportant if work doesn’t have a heartbeat. Greenbaum’s ceramics are full of energy and fun to see. Yes, she will continue to get better. And quoting that 2002 NYT review was a low blow. Left a very bad taste in my mouth. I will end by saying I like CFile.
I write criticism not pablum, its in her printed record and supports the idea (not just mine) that her painting took time to mature. Its perfectly within the rules of scholarship.
I am also an old guy, and can appreciate the quiet confidence that decades of experience brings . . . I think your response was objective, supported, and an insight into how a fair critique is performed . . . Well said!