I have so many problems with the inaccuracies, offenses and naive rantings in some of Cotter's recent work that I could write a book. First let me begin with what he seems to think is the graduate school experience. I went to the evil school in Connecticut that breeds artstars, it starts with a "Y" and rhymes with "Sale". Regardless of what Cotter seems to think happens in school, even in a single-discipline painting program like Yale, one has to fight for the right to make a simple representational painting. Very few people these days know how to talk about painting, let alone representational work, as I'm sure Cotter knows, and in grad school you are constantly being told, "take this off the wall", "loosen up" or my favorite, "this is end-game painting, you can't sustain this". The only reason why someone like me makes it out of school with dreams of representational painting intact is because we simply love doing it. It is simply something we have felt in the deepest part of ourself for most, if not all our life. It is not some conspiracy of marketability, and in fact few schools give any official post-graduation career guidance at all. Cotter needs to stop spewing this nonsense about what the evil schools are doing to "narrow talent to a sharp point". The truth is that a lot of the students that do what the faculty tell them to do, never make it as artists. A lot of my friends from my graduating class that are doing well now, ignored the majority of the instructors. If most professors in institutions had their way, all you would see was messy, slap-dash, installation art which I'm sure Cotter would love.
Holland Cotter is hell-bent on removing talent and skill from the discourse of contemporary art. For some reason talent is seen as elitist and evil to people like Cotter. Of course this sort of thinking is like any other trend in the art world and it waxes and wanes like any other part of the market. The Holland Cotters of the world are always there though, like wolves, waiting for the chance to strike when one's guard is down. It is very telling that Cotter chose to highlight the only photo-realist painting in the Martin Kippenberger retrospective. It's a self-portrait, but the artist hired someone else to paint it since he couldn't have done it himself. Actually, there is another photo-realist painting in the show, a Gerhardt Richter that Martin Kippenberger bought and turned into a coffee table to suggest that "painting as a form, while useful, was overrated". Very clever I must admit, but also a perfect example of how Cotter feels towards skill and talent. It's something that an intelligent person pays to be done for them, or something to mock in the work of others. Now forgive me if I'm just a naive painter with technical skills, but that truly does seem elitist.
Next lets talk about how absolutely ridiculous it is for Cotter to pine for the days of the "artist with day job". First of all, an artist should be able make a living at what they do if they're good at it. This is simple and not a lot to ask for-- it's natural. I'm not going to argue this point because it doesn't deserve it. Secondly, the examples of artists cited in his article, "The Boom is Over..." are misleading. As everyone knows, Van Gogh only sold one painting and never made a living from his art in his time. He also committed suicide at the age of 37 due to depression and mental illness. Jackson Pollock may have been a busboy at one point in his career but he made his revolutionary "drip" paintings when he was already established and financially secure with help from sugar-mama Guggenheim. Then, at the age of 44, he ended up killing himself in a car accident due to alcoholism and mental illness. In fact he was classified "unfit" for military service in 1941 on "psychological grounds". And finally, Henry Darger was a schizophrenic, pedophilac, outsider-artist who wasn't trying to make "Art" in the first place. It is insulting that psychological train-wrecks such as these should be used as examples of what we as artists should be modeling our lives after and it truly speaks to the depth of Holland Cotter's ego and condescending attitude as a critic. I would also like to point out that Martin Kippenberger, Holland Cotter's most recent artist to champion, died at 44 from alcoholism and mental illness. It seems as though Cotter would prefer artists were mentally ill and suicidal for his own amusement. The Times needs to consider the agenda behind someone like Holland Cotter. He is a negative and spiteful man who not only dances as Rome burns, but kicks the bodies of those dying in the street.
Cotter is the sort of individual who feigns an attitude of genuine optimism when his agenda is petty cynicism. An art critic could probably transition to writing about something other than art, but for whatever reason have chosen to be an art critic, and are in turn dependant on artists to have something to write about. Some critics like Holland Cotter seem to resent this and whether it's simply because of their personality or something more sinister, try to destroy the art world from the inside. Art criticism can be very beneficial to artists, as well as the people who appreciate art, but the critic has to actually like art in the first place. I truly question whether someone like Cotter even likes art because to like art you have to appreciate the breadth of art. I don't want to read a critic who only likes figurative painting and I don't want to read a critic who only writes about installation or purely conceptual works. Their opinion is meaningless unless it comes from a place of thorough knowledge, understanding, and appreciation for the history and expanse of art in its various and multitudinous forms. I would finish this letter with a quote from Ayn Rand's "The Fountain Head". It comes from one of the secondary villains, Jules Fougler, who while a theater critic, is a perfect reflection of Holland Cotter.
"What achievement is there for a critic in praising a good play? None whatever. The critic is then nothing but a kind of glorified messenger boy between author and public. What's there in that for me? I'm sick of it. I have a right to wish to impress my own personality upon people. Otherwise I shall become frustrated--and I do not believe in frustration. But if a critic is able to put over a perfectly worthless play--ah, you do perceive the difference!"
Holland Cotter is hell-bent on removing talent and skill from the discourse of contemporary art. For some reason talent is seen as elitist and evil to people like Cotter. Of course this sort of thinking is like any other trend in the art world and it waxes and wanes like any other part of the market. The Holland Cotters of the world are always there though, like wolves, waiting for the chance to strike when one's guard is down. It is very telling that Cotter chose to highlight the only photo-realist painting in the Martin Kippenberger retrospective. It's a self-portrait, but the artist hired someone else to paint it since he couldn't have done it himself. Actually, there is another photo-realist painting in the show, a Gerhardt Richter that Martin Kippenberger bought and turned into a coffee table to suggest that "painting as a form, while useful, was overrated". Very clever I must admit, but also a perfect example of how Cotter feels towards skill and talent. It's something that an intelligent person pays to be done for them, or something to mock in the work of others. Now forgive me if I'm just a naive painter with technical skills, but that truly does seem elitist.
Next lets talk about how absolutely ridiculous it is for Cotter to pine for the days of the "artist with day job". First of all, an artist should be able make a living at what they do if they're good at it. This is simple and not a lot to ask for-- it's natural. I'm not going to argue this point because it doesn't deserve it. Secondly, the examples of artists cited in his article, "The Boom is Over..." are misleading. As everyone knows, Van Gogh only sold one painting and never made a living from his art in his time. He also committed suicide at the age of 37 due to depression and mental illness. Jackson Pollock may have been a busboy at one point in his career but he made his revolutionary "drip" paintings when he was already established and financially secure with help from sugar-mama Guggenheim. Then, at the age of 44, he ended up killing himself in a car accident due to alcoholism and mental illness. In fact he was classified "unfit" for military service in 1941 on "psychological grounds". And finally, Henry Darger was a schizophrenic, pedophilac, outsider-artist who wasn't trying to make "Art" in the first place. It is insulting that psychological train-wrecks such as these should be used as examples of what we as artists should be modeling our lives after and it truly speaks to the depth of Holland Cotter's ego and condescending attitude as a critic. I would also like to point out that Martin Kippenberger, Holland Cotter's most recent artist to champion, died at 44 from alcoholism and mental illness. It seems as though Cotter would prefer artists were mentally ill and suicidal for his own amusement. The Times needs to consider the agenda behind someone like Holland Cotter. He is a negative and spiteful man who not only dances as Rome burns, but kicks the bodies of those dying in the street.
Cotter is the sort of individual who feigns an attitude of genuine optimism when his agenda is petty cynicism. An art critic could probably transition to writing about something other than art, but for whatever reason have chosen to be an art critic, and are in turn dependant on artists to have something to write about. Some critics like Holland Cotter seem to resent this and whether it's simply because of their personality or something more sinister, try to destroy the art world from the inside. Art criticism can be very beneficial to artists, as well as the people who appreciate art, but the critic has to actually like art in the first place. I truly question whether someone like Cotter even likes art because to like art you have to appreciate the breadth of art. I don't want to read a critic who only likes figurative painting and I don't want to read a critic who only writes about installation or purely conceptual works. Their opinion is meaningless unless it comes from a place of thorough knowledge, understanding, and appreciation for the history and expanse of art in its various and multitudinous forms. I would finish this letter with a quote from Ayn Rand's "The Fountain Head". It comes from one of the secondary villains, Jules Fougler, who while a theater critic, is a perfect reflection of Holland Cotter.
"What achievement is there for a critic in praising a good play? None whatever. The critic is then nothing but a kind of glorified messenger boy between author and public. What's there in that for me? I'm sick of it. I have a right to wish to impress my own personality upon people. Otherwise I shall become frustrated--and I do not believe in frustration. But if a critic is able to put over a perfectly worthless play--ah, you do perceive the difference!"
