“Scalding,” “scathing,” “hell-bent tiger” are words used to describe the notorious Time magazine art critic Robert Hughes, but perhaps “boring,” “rambling,” and “pompous” should also be added to that list.
Hughes’ lecture at the Quick Center last Wednesday entitled “Art: Is This Really As Bad As It Gets?” left one thinking more along the lines of “Robert Hughes: Is This Really Even You?”
The man known for his skewerings of the hot-air heroes of the 80’s and his one-hand-tied-behind-my-back drubbing of multiculturalism’s imbecilities was simply not present. Instead, a soft-spoken Hughes’, void of controversy went through a couple of slides, made some comments about fly-fishing and called it a day.
There was no drama, no full on assault of the type that Hughes is famed for and ultimately there was no point. The power of a critic is to give one’s opinion, yes, but also to make the audience or their readers care about and believe that opinion. Hughes simply didn’t do that and at the end of his speech one was left thinking- well what exactly was that all about and what was the point of listening?
Perhaps the hype of the introduction (which seemed almost as long as Hughes’ speech) couldn’t help but set the audience up for a let down. After being touted as the opener of “the gates to our eyes and our minds” and as “St. Bob” by art history professor Dr. Eliasoph, Hughes took the stage saying he certainly couldn’t live up to such a lofty introduction. He wasn’t being humble – he was right.
During the course of his talk Hughes showed examples of works by Jenny Holzer, Julian Schnabel, and Jeff Koon. He went on to criticize them all, calling Holzer’s work “simple minded cliched utterances.” Of Schnable he said “he is a textbook case of an artist who grew up in a field that never said no, that’s an awful drawing chuck it.” Hughes held all three artists as examples of “the unjustified self confidence much of the avant-garde gets by being treated as official art.”
Although these statements seem a little like the Hughes that one is used to (from his reviews in Time magazine), they are also the same attacks he has been using since the 80’s. What about art now? Why keep dredging up the hyperinflation that occurred in the art world then, everyone knows it happened- move on Mr. Hughes.
This was perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the lecture, in that one could glean much of what he said from reading any background material on him. Of course Hughes’ comments were germane twenty years ago, but what about the today? Hughes sadly still seems stuck in the 80’s, but without the bad hair and clothes that went with that decade.
Hughes said that “writing about art can itself be a form of art, but only if it becomes so by virtue of the quality of the writer,” a sentiment that he has consistently proven through his articles in Time magazine. However, it seems that speaking about art is also linked to the quality of the speaker, a quality that Hughes was definitely lacking during this lecture.
Leave a Reply