NYTimes Art Critic Takes on 'Noxious Vibes Emanating' from the Ultra-Rich '1 Percent'
New York Times art critic Holland Cotter’s year-i- review piece Sunday opened with an awkward metaphorical shout-out to the lefty park-squatters of Occupy Wall Street and an excoriation of the “noxious” 1 percent: “Complacency Butts Up Against Game Changers”: "...art-worldlings did at least adopt one thing from the Occupy Wall Street movement: a new identifying label for the source of particularly noxious vibes emanating from art fairs, V.I.P. galas and museum boardrooms: namely the 1 percent."
There was a lot of painting on view in Zuccotti Park this fall, in the form of Occupy Wall Street protest posters, free for the taking. And there was a lot of painting on the walls of New York art galleries, most of it post-M.F.A. eye candy with hefty price tags. The physical distance between Lower Manhattan and the Chelsea art zone is short, but the mental and moral gap felt immeasurable. The park was about light-on-its-feet, change-the-game politics. Chelsea -- leaden and inbred -- was about cash and caution.
True, art-worldlings did at least adopt one thing from the Occupy Wall Street movement: a new identifying label for the source of particularly noxious vibes emanating from art fairs, V.I.P. galas and museum boardrooms: namely the 1 percent. But why, you’ll ask, dis the ultrarich? Haven’t they historically been the primary bankrollers of great art?
Sure, except we’re not getting great art. By and large we’re getting high-polish mediocrity. You had really, truly, desperately need to believe in the perpetual wondrous newness value of contemporary work to conclude that the New York gallery season just past was anything more than a long flat line, with month after month of young artists rehashing yesteryear’s trends and veterans cannibalizing their own careers.
On July 22 Cotter revealed his suspicions of free-market capitalism in his review of an exhibit of Soviet and post-Soviet art: “Free-market capitalism brought its suppressions and exclusions, as artists discovered. Among other things, some felt, it undermined the purpose and value of art.”
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
It has been my understanding
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 10:34am.
that the word "noxious" best describes the Occupoopers.
Second paragraph is spot on
Submitted by JeffC... on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 11:05am.
Unoriginal and rehashing--just like OWS.
Hey, art critic: Guess which
Submitted by moderncommentaries83 on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 11:05am.
Hey, art critic: Guess which folks shell out hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands of dollars to support the art world? That "noxious" 1%...
Yes, Mr. Cotter sounds the quintessential 99%er.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 11:30am.
Born in Connecticut, raised in Beacon Hill, Boston. √
Harvard. √.
Degree in Indian Buddhist art, Columbia. √
Studied Sanskrit. √
Taught Islamic art. √
Pulitzer. √
Lives with "partner." √
... and between him and his "partner," ...
Submitted by Newsbubba on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 1:07pm.
... (I'm guessing) they're probably knocking down anywhere from $250,000 to $500,000 in NYC and living and doing whatever they do to each other in a very trendy Manhatten hovel.
Went to a gallery the other day where my favorite artist was showing his latest stuff. The cheapest thing in there was $35,000. Haven't heard him bitching about the 1%. He'll sell it all in about a week when the show opens.
wow... a new game!
Submitted by wizardjr on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 12:35pm.
Pooping on cop cars is a game. Who knew....?
Really? Artists disdaining the rich?
Submitted by Tenebrous on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 7:39pm.
I wonder how they will survive. The OWS crowd doesn't have any money. Middle class people don't have the kind of money artists ask. Outside of the government and the wealthy, who's going to buy their stuff?
This guy thinks that free markets brought suppressions and exclusions? How could uncoerced choices suppress anyone? Exclusions? This sounds an awful lot like he's using fancy words to say that people didn't want to buy what the artists produced. Idiot. As if anyone had a guaranteed sale of anything they create.
It doesn't surprise me that this bigot wants art controlled by the state in the name of providing a living to said artists. By doing so, he moronically rips the heart out of what makes art work -- the individual acting freely. Typical. Let's cut off our nose to spite our face.
Visions and Principles blog
vibes
Submitted by g55rumpy on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 4:36am.
i`ll take the "noxious vibes" from the 1% over the noxious fumes of the so-called 99%