Photo: Carol Diehl © 2012
One of the most interesting things about writing a review
(as I am now of the current Gerhard Richter exhibition of new digital works at
Marian Goodman), is seeing how other critics handle the same material. Here’s Karen
Rosenberg in the Times:
“These works are not just anti-ideological (a Richter
hallmark): they’re also antiseptic, more so, even, than the new sculpture, ‘6
standing glass panels’ that accompanies them.”
Rosenberg is entitled to find the works “antiseptic,” if
that’s her take, but to make no further mention of the 9’ x 9’ x 9’ sculpture
that’s at the core of the exhibition seems remiss.
Installed in the center of rear
gallery at Goodman (and, to be accurate, entitled 6 Panes of Glass in a Rack)
the work is essential—first in the architectural way it grounds the space, and
secondly because of what happens when you look into it and through it, how it
interacts with the images on the walls and the other people in the room. To
view it as simply a steel rack with glass panels, is like seeing a Robert Irwin
scrim piece as a length of fabric stretched from floor to ceiling, or a FredSandback as a geometric configuration made with yarn.
Perhaps people are now so used to art fairs, where the works
are—by necessity—installed in a way that’s relatively arbitrary and seen as
objects to be assessed rather than engaged with, they don’t consider that the
artist may have had an intention for the entire exhibition, or that a sculpture
may add up to more than its parts.
Maybe Richter should have provided an artist’s statement.
Smiling at your suggestion about a statement.
ReplyDelete