Pittman’s Art Should Stand or Fail on Own Merits, Regardless of Criticism

It is a first, as far as I am aware, for Counterpunch to publish a couple of angry “letters” (“Review of Drawings Draws Anger,” Calendar, Feb. 26), with very little in the way of rebuttal to the published article other than what the writers perceived as a disrespectful and dismissive tone in the review (“The Decadent Decor of Pittman’s ‘Drawings’ ” by William Wilson, Calendar, Feb. 7). Perhaps by their placement in the highly visible Counterpunch section, the editors wished to highlight them as examples of a unified front, in conflict with the possibility of different evaluations of an artist’s work. If this is in fact the intention, the letters published lack any plausible argument strong enough to create such a conflict.

The many authors of the first letter actually take offense at the whole output of Wilson’s “irresponsible” writing for 10 years! They cite as example what they feel to be a politically incorrect tone to his review. Since, to my knowledge, Wilson has been at The Times for more than 30 years, I can’t imagine what is the reason for his offending manner to be limited to that time period. Were the offended parties not reading The Times that long ago? Or perhaps they were not yet “participants and supporters of the Los Angeles art community.” In any case, Wilson could in fact have been able to offend them for more than triple the time ascribed to him.

The second, less hysterical, letter from Scott Grieger and Alexis Smith finds them “dismayed” at the difference of opinion of two critics at the same paper. One critic appreciates Lari Pittman, the other does not. They disagree . . . so what? An artist will usually find champions and detractors among his critics.

In my opinion, the authors of the angry letters misunderstand the issue. No matter whether mean-spirited or well-meaning, an unfavorable review of an artist is by nature disrespectful, dismissive and most certainly a personal attack. For an artist to survive a long life of commitment to his work, the artist must not take the personal attacks personally. This can also be said of favorable notices.

An artist works within fragile parameters that cannot or should not be allowed to be invaded by the critic’s reading of the work. Even when there seems to be a consensus of critical opinion for or against the artist, the work is independent of such concerns and subject only to the individual artistic conscience. Nevertheless, reviews play a part in the exposure and attention that the artist’s work receives, allowing the work to reach and affect as wide an audience as possible.

However, reviewing the arts is not an exact science; these reviews are based on personal opinions and, as such, one has to discern the reviewer’s personal agenda and rhetoric. While conflicting opinions of various critics can be polarizing, they also can be instructive in revealing the cycle of acclaim and dismissal in the arts. Throughout history, critical evaluations have acclaimed, dismissed, rediscovered and dismissed again, revived and redefined artists.

The angry letter writers should calm down and understand that an artist’s best defense is his work and that critical evaluation is always after the fact. Lari Pittman’s work, along with William Wilson and Christopher Knight’s words, will stand or fail on its own merits. However, you can bet that opinion on those merits will vary.

ROBERT GRAHAM

Venice

*

I am startled and surprised by the reactions of the “participants in and supporters of the Los Angeles arts community.”

I read Wilson’s review and although I didn’t agree with everything he had to say in reference to the work, I found the review both critically challenging and insightful. It was a pleasant surprise to read an objective, constructively critical review instead of the typical “review,” which simply describes the physical properties of the work without any critical analysis.

That an art critic can have an opinion that opposes mainstream views seems to be what the participants and supporters of the Los Angeles arts community object to so strongly. If Pittman is “arguably . . . the most significant American painter of his generation,” then his art should stand above all criticism leveled against it.

The art is surely more substantial and significant than any critical attempt to define or describe it.

I applaud The Times for not censoring a critic whose aesthetic views differ from the mainstream tastes of the Los Angeles arts community.

RICHARD SHELTON

The writer is an artist in Los Angeles.