Growing up as the child of a professional musician, it was not uncommon
to hear grumblings across the breakfast table over critical missteps in
the morning paper’s concert reviews. This is not an uncommon sentiment
amongst artists either.
 |
| John Ruskin, ca. 1879. Charles Scribner's Sons Art Reference Dept. records. |
In his
review of James McNeill Whistler’s 1877 show at the Grosvenor Gallery,
and in response to his painting Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket in particular, the art critic John Ruskin famously declared,
“I
have seen, and heard, much of cockney impudence before now; but never expected to hear a coxcomb ask two
hundred guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public’s face.”
Whistler’s response was to sue Ruskin for
libel, and though he won his settlement, it was only a farthing.
The painter Clyfford Still was never shy about his distaste for art critics or anyone else he felt misunderstood his work. Writing to Betty Parsons about some of his
paintings in her gallery inventory he stressed,
“...allow no one to write about
them. NO ONE. My contempt for the intelligence of the scribblers I have read is so complete that I cannot tolerate their
imbecilities, particularly when they attempt to deal with my canvases.”
 |
| Rubber baby pants, 19--. Emily Genauer papers. |
His response to the New York Herald Tribune’s art critic Emily Genauer’s columns was equally as blunt, though pithier: he sent a pair of rubber baby pants with a note that read, "Hoping this will aid in concealing your Sunday affliction. With the compliments of
Clyfford Still." One can only imagine that Whistler would have approved.
More on artists and critics at the Archives of American Art:
Elizabeth Botten works in the Reference Services Department at the Archives of American Art. This post was originally published on the Archives of American Art blog in August, 2010.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment