Why Blake is Wrong (Again)

When an art critic hangs his or her entire reputation on joining in early on his writing career with a traditional anchoring art criticism agenda, and for years and years pounds this agenda forth as the true (and only) Gospel for contemporary art, it takes either:

(a) A huge amount of professional courage to realize that the times have left your founding ideas (and the foundation of your agenda) behind as a quaint, and once revolutionary concept, or

(b) Ignore the present, and continue to pound your dated agenda and discredited, once collective ideas and communal concepts as if they're still new, and novel and applicable.

Blake Gopnik, the intelligent and erudite chief art critic of the Washington Post, has told his readers time and time again that:

- Painting is Dead

- Video, Installation Art and Photography are the only contemporary genres worth exploring

- There's something "icky" about nudes

- The holy grail of the art market is a non-existing "new" painting art movement

- Being "up to date" and "new" are key things in contemporary art (nevermind that Video, Installation Art and Photography are quite aged in years now and not the "new kids on the art block" that maybe they once were when Gopnik started writing).

- There's nothing "new" that painting can offer that would have looked much out of place over the past five or ten years in any high-end New York gallery.

- Skill is "banal"

- There's something "icky" about nudes (did I mention that already? Well... he harps on this aversion over and over).

See how many of these Gopnikisms you can find in this traditional Gopnik review of a painting show, in this case his review of "Life After Death: New Leipzig Paintings From the Rubell Family Collection" at the American University Museum at the Katzen Arts Center.