A strange tale of grass roots art criticism has unfolded in Boston this week.
An Instagram
account started by one Max Gellar, entitled Renoir Sucks at Painting, was taken
onto the streets of Boston. Protestors (reportedly, about six of them) stood
outside Boston's Museum of Fine Arts (MFA) carrying placards proclaiming that
'God Hates Renoir', 'Renoir Sucks', and the snappy 'ReNOir'. Their demand: MFA
should take down its Renoirs, replacing them with other works kept in its
storage vaults.
Photo: Lane Turmer /AP |
'Why do so many
people think he’s good?' the Guardian reports Gellar as asking. 'Have you looked
at his paintings?' They are, according to him, 'empty calorie-laden steaming
piles', the decision to hang which in public galleries 'represents an act of aesthetic
terrorism'.
It is not clear
how serious the protest is. The Huffington Post reports Gellar as saying it is
'meant to be taken more ironically than literally', but Gellar's more genuine
point appears to be the question of who is entitled to decide what deserves
space in national galleries. 'Curators,' he is reported to have said, 'lack the
courage to say, ‘Hey, wait, everybody’s been wrong this whole time.’ They’re
not looking at the paintings.'
Either way the
story is reminiscent of another, more famous instance of an art critic
attacking a painter's work: Whistler v Ruskin, the 1878 libel case in which J M
Whistler sued the famous critic John Ruskin over his published letter
commenting on some of Whistler's paintings, in particular the impressionistic
Nocturne in Black and Gold: the Falling Rocket. Ruskin, in a pithy comment
worthy of Gellar, wrote that Whistler's work was like 'flinging a pot of paint
in the public's face', enraging Whistler until he finally took the matter to
the courts - rather to the amusement of the public, which was impressed neither by Ruskin's over-personal critique nor Whistler's arguably over-sensitive reaction.
J M Whistler Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket, The Detroit Institute of Arts |
Luckily for
Gellar, Renoir, who died in 1919, is not around to follow Whistler's lead and sue - it is a
general principle that the dead cannot be defamed. But even if he were alive he
might be put off by the outcome of that historic trial. The painter won, but
instead of the £1000 he had claimed, poor Whistler was given just one farthing
in nominal damages, leaving him in heavy debt due to paying his own costs.
Meanwhile, the MFA shows no
signs of bowing to public demand, and Renoir's works remain on view to offend
or delight, as the case may be.
No comments:
Post a Comment