Seattle needs all the critics it can get. In that sense, it needs Matthew Kangas, long-time Seattle correspondent for Art in America. His contribution to criticism began in the 1970s and continues to the present, with a review on Artdish of the Tacoma Art Museum’s A Concise History of Northwest Art.
Even if his byline were missing, I’d recognize his magisterial tone. His opinions impersonate facts. Because he states them, they are true. Beyond their imperative, they need no supporting evidence. I haven’t yet seen this show, but the solemn clarity of Kangas’ intelligence doesn’t carry me through this piece without a few quibbles.
First, he doesn’t think the museum’s plan to expand its definition of Northwest art to include British Columbia is sound.
The TAM Board of Trustees approved a 10-year plan for the collection in 2009 that included a “strategy” to “expand the definition of Northwest art to include British Columbia and Alaska.” Although noble and sensible in principle, this is one aspect of U.S.-Canada cultural relationships that has never been truly reciprocal. We exhibit and acquire their artists; BC art museums never show Seattle artists let alone acquire their work (their state-funded cultural policies won’t allow it). Maybe Hushka and Bullock have miscalculated in this sense: better to stick to the continental US.
The Vancouver Art Gallery owns the work of American artists. VAG’s focus is B.C. first and Canada second. That’s a focus, not a rule. Even if there were such a rule, TAM is right to consider the Northwest within a context of geographical reality. TAM is not horse trading. It’s building a record of art in this region. Leaving out B.C. is consigning the collection to parochialism.
Second, he decrees that TAM needs to rely less on donations, which he calls “hand-outs,” as if the museum had lined up at a soup kitchen, empty bowl extended. Nearly all art museums rely on donations. The job of curators is, in part, to shape those donations, inspiring patrons to make gifts of what the museum most desires. If museums had to buy what they wanted, they’d all be hunger artists.
Third, he tosses off opinions of individual artists. In this review, there are no other kind. Why does Christian Staub “stand head and heels” over all other photographers in the show? I love Staub’s work and think it’s fearsomely underrated, but in a review, shouldn’t at least one reason for its value be given?
An attack on Claire Cowie needs a little more than this:
Sky Village (2005), by Claire Cowie, seems a typically vacuous example of her thin, overrated watercolor paintings.
Yes, they’re thin. They’re watercolors. If he’s going to call them vacuous, isn’t he required to back it up? No, he isn’t. He’s Matthew Kangas, the art critic equivalent of Moses. He comes down from his mountain with the rules in his hands. Not his rules. The rules. On the other hand, I appreciate his confidence, which is not entirely misplaced. If he bothered to articulate the basis of his thinking, it would be worth reading.
Where’s the paragraph in which Kangas argues that art from BC shouldn’t be included in a NW show because Vancouver’s actually in the Southwest of Canada?
captcha: what overact
Matthew Kangas thinks Claire Cowie’s watercolors are overrated. It’s a toss off, sure. Big deal. So what? Is this statement going to sway popular opinion? I find it more interesting that you felt the urge to defend Claire from this one sentence of criticism! One sentence! Also, considering that he only mentions about thirty of the near two hundred artists in the show. I totally agree with you that Kangas is bold and that Seattle needs as many critics, with as many different points of view as possible.
Regina,
I’m afraid you’ll need to distinguish ‘facts’ from ‘opinion’ a bit more clearly or risk being guilty of these charges yourself. What is your criteria? You have certainly argued positions here that weren’t exactly backed up by scientific evidence. What is and is not permissible for an art critic? What about an art blogger?
Regina is the man!!!!yadatimean
i’m thrilled i’ve finally attracted regina’s attention to my writing! and i love her courage in criticizing my review without ever having seen the exhibition. that’s a new one, too, even for her. and tacoma is so far away! wait until she reads my artdish.com review of the new wright exhibition space. i hope she’ll find time to see more of the art she discusses. if i’m moses, regina is the virgin mary: very pure but impossibly associated with bizarre cults that have clouded her thinking. rage on!
Matthew. Thank you for responding. I appreciate it. As I’m sure you realize, I wasn’t writing about the show but about your review, which can be assessed independently from its subject. You didn’t respond to anything I wrote, but showing up here is at least a start of what could be a dialogue.
Thrilled? Me too! I’m thrilled to see Matthew Kangas contributing his ample talents to the Artdish. Unless you’ve been napping, it is difficult not to notice that Artdish has been on a roll and the inclusion of Mr. Kangas and others is a welcome sight.
Criticism and opinion is his job Regina, and yours as well.
You know, the wonderful thing about Artdish is the unencumbered oportunity for freedom of discourse, sans moderator, with the most remarkable aspect of that discourse being conducted in a civilzed manner. For that civility, I give credit to Demetre, who has set a mood, all with a simple nod.
I’d look foward to you Regina, and you Matthew, engaging in a bit of (ahem) dialogue on the Artdish. An exchange of informed factual opinion in the form of polite debate would be an interesting read. Why not? People would love it.
I agree with Marulis: go for it, you two! It makes everything so much more interesting. Maybe your next stop should be the Kurt show.
I’ve always enjoyed Kangas’ writing exactly because he makes bold pronouncements. The fact that one doesn’t necessarily try to construct a logical proof around every statement doesn’t have any bearing on the value or validity of the statement. It only has bearing on how much it may sway the reader to his perspective. But then again I’ve always been someone who likes to look at the pictures in books and is less concerned about the explanation of them. I want the explanation only after I’ve found the image worthy of investing further time.
This is awesome!
While I agree with Marulis that it’s awesome to have such lively activity on Artdish, it’s not the only place where people can engage in an “unencumbered oportunity for freedom of discourse, sans moderator, with the most remarkable aspect of that discourse being conducted in a civilized manner”
With the unfortunate exception of SLOG, let’s not forget the art blogs of Seattle are such places, and always have been. It’s a tired shame the internet lends itself to unfettered anonymous bashing, but the virtue of Regina’s blog (and all the rest) is she allows opinions and differences to show up in the comments, thus rendering this rather “unencumbered“. Wouldn’t you agree, Marulis?
As long as you’re all in the ring, keep it going while I figure out where to place my bets. I for one didn’t even realise Kangas was still around. Maybe he should start a blog?
When I told my son that I was planning on rebuilding and re-sleeving my kitchen faucet, his response was that I should just go out and buy a new one. He thinks I’m a bit too frugal, but why should I shop for a new faucet and relegate the old one to a landfill’s scrap heap? With a little effort and a small expense I can update a thing which in the past has served me quite well.
Like Regina, I am amazed at the self-sacrifice and commitment of the Artdish staff and I do admire the genius of the original format. Yes, it is time for an update and a remodel, but please, do not destroy the soul of this blog. There is a unique inviting feeling attached to the Artdish and to have folks like Mr. Kangas occasionally drop in to partake in the fare being offered is a real treat.
I know there are other blogs out there and I’ll peruse my way sometimes, (most recently I went to Hollingsworth’s, he makes such nice art!). Admittedly though, I do find it difficult to hang my hat in too many places at the same time. Loyalty is a fault, and besides, I simply do not believe in tossing away a perfectly good faucet.