Enlarge This Image
Showcasing Howard Hodgkin's small abstractions
Hodgkin, After Degas, 1993. Oil on wood. Private collection.
Hodgkin's abstract paintings from the last fifteen years are currently on exhibit at the Yale Center for British Art. In a review by Michael Kimmelman, the small scale of Hodgkin's work is mentioned, not without a tone of "othering" the works by abstract artists that are small in scale. This seems to confirm a fear that for many of us, size is a large factor in the ability of abstract work to connect or permeate the viewer's conscious (See Newman,Vir Heroicus Sublimins). What is it about the language (bad word) of abstract painting that necessitates size? One should stop and consider the oft forgotten mural tradition of the 1930's that was pounded into the first generation of American abstract expressionists via the W.P.A Federal Arts Project. Dealing in murals was the order of the day, and there is some inkling of carry-over in next phase of American art. Rothko presents perhaps the most blatant example of W.P.A. mural baggage, though most of them (New York School) tend to deal in a large scale. Its clear we are still looking at paintings in the shadow of this specific tradition.
Does an abstract work suffer from a smaller scale? Kimmelman and Hodgkin do not seem to think so. Kimmelman describes Hodgkin's work as "smart", "careful", and "serious"; overall he claims the better part of the small work is beautiful.
Kimmelman's NY Times Review
Yale Center for British Art
-Michael Pepi (02/16/07)
Hodgkin, After Degas, 1993. Oil on wood. Private collection.
Hodgkin's abstract paintings from the last fifteen years are currently on exhibit at the Yale Center for British Art. In a review by Michael Kimmelman, the small scale of Hodgkin's work is mentioned, not without a tone of "othering" the works by abstract artists that are small in scale. This seems to confirm a fear that for many of us, size is a large factor in the ability of abstract work to connect or permeate the viewer's conscious (See Newman,Vir Heroicus Sublimins). What is it about the language (bad word) of abstract painting that necessitates size? One should stop and consider the oft forgotten mural tradition of the 1930's that was pounded into the first generation of American abstract expressionists via the W.P.A Federal Arts Project. Dealing in murals was the order of the day, and there is some inkling of carry-over in next phase of American art. Rothko presents perhaps the most blatant example of W.P.A. mural baggage, though most of them (New York School) tend to deal in a large scale. Its clear we are still looking at paintings in the shadow of this specific tradition.
Does an abstract work suffer from a smaller scale? Kimmelman and Hodgkin do not seem to think so. Kimmelman describes Hodgkin's work as "smart", "careful", and "serious"; overall he claims the better part of the small work is beautiful.
Kimmelman's NY Times Review
Yale Center for British Art
-Michael Pepi (02/16/07)
posted by VPepi at 5:50 PM
1 Comments:
To: Michael Pepi (02/2 The article on Hodgkin is terrific. I am compiling a more elaborate response which I will post on Art notes as soon as it is complete. Congratulations.
Vincent Pepi
Post a Comment
<< Home