Pictures of Nothing

I am of course referring to the newly published book by Kirk Varnedoe. I would have been blissfully unaware of said book if it had not been for a well known blog (see Green, Tyler). Anyway, I spent the weekend reading it and I’m sure I’ll spend even more time with it later. The amazing thing is just how dead on this book (based on his lectures) is.

Some things have to be said upfront, this is not courseware – there are going to be people left out and I’m sure you can make cases for reasons not to include certain artists over others, but you can always do that. What I’m floored by is the way he presents abstract art – regardless of approach in a thoughtful and compelling way. It’s the little details he gets right that are so compelling;

• the “breaking” of abstraction after the Abstract Expressionists
• the blue collar work approach of Richard Serra
• the snarkiness of Roy Lichtenstein
• the understanding of what painting is, and more importantly is not by Robert Ryman
• the folly of abstraction as “pure”
• And the true experience of Walter De Marias “Lightning Field”

I could go on at some length about this book, however I think I’ll end it here with just one thought. I do believe that to really see art you have to see it in real space. I also know that most people see most art in reproduction. The key element that Varnedoe quietly insists throughout this book/presentations is that the less there is to see, the more you need to look, but also to understand the dialog around the art itself.

By the way, I do disagree with Varnedoe about the late paintings of DeKooning, with anything you will never agree 100%.