ArtSeen
Comic Abstraction
The Museum of Modern Art March 4 – June 11, 2007

In order to pass muster with the critical establishment, art today needs to be a critique. It must reveal an awareness of cultural perceptions dating back as far as the 60s such as: “America has a racist history,” or “Male sexuality tends to objectify females,” or “High art is about cultural snobbery.” Regardless of the relative importance or truth of these tenets, their presence has been deemed essential to the quality of an artwork. Hence, the work in Comic Abstraction: Image-Breaking, Image-Making at the Museum of Modern Art is, as the title suggests, about the deconstruction of the cultural role of images in contemporary culture. This role—as we are informed by curator’s statements, press releases and wall texts—includes such tasks as revealing racial and sexual stereotypes and identifying how mass media sets out to influence its viewers.
This sort of indoctrination might account in part for the uniformity of much of the work in Comic Abstraction which is abstract in the sense that late Monet was abstract: by fiddling with the way an object is represented. Take Sue William’s paintings. From afar, their floating skeins of paint look like a kind of controlled gestural abstraction. Up close, you see that they depict the contorted forms of human bodies with pronounced nostrils, anuses and clitorises. The abstraction of these paintings is superficial and, as a result, confusing. If the artist wants to show body parts, why doesn’t she just do so? In order to explain her reticence, I find myself falling back on the tired rhetoric I’ve been force fed by galleries and museums for the past two decades: “Williams is intentionally obscuring the feminine dimension of the body through use of bright colors and movement in much the same way that mass culture shields us from our ingrained biases and cloaks its own efforts to influence our thought.” Yuk. If I have to justify a painting to myself with a rote language that isn’t even my own, then something’s wrong. Art, when you encounter it, should deliver you from your petty intellectual reflexes.

There are highlights to the show, among them Ellen Gallagher’s early paintings and Franz West’s “Mirror in a Cabin with Adaptives” (1996). But I would argue that, in both cases, their connection to the rest of the work in the exhibition is tangential. Which brings about another source of confusion: What exactly is meant here by the word “comic”—work that’s comical or work derived from comics? Whereas much of the show falls into the latter category, Gallagher’s canvases do not. The tiny caricatured faces she incorporates bear little resemblance to the comics’ graphic forms and bright colors. Her sprawling compositions have nothing to do with deconstructing an outside image. If anything, they amaze with their visual novelty. West’s “Adaptives” are chunks of formless plaster stuck to steel rods that he invites viewers to carry into a large cube plastered with newspaper clippings and fitted with a floor-to-ceiling mirror. Brandishing an “adaptive,” you are free to do what you will in the cube (I thought of breaking the mirror—telling I’m sure) but, whatever you do, it seems hard to avoid feeling a little comic. In form, however, this has little to do with the rest of the show.
I love comic books and was an avid reader of them for years. I believe they can be used very effectively in art—just look at the way Barry Le Va mutated their narrative format into his cryptic sculptural practice. As far as critique goes, Peter Saul’s comic paint barbs are way meaner than anything in Comic Abstraction as is much of the work of Jeff Koons, whose absence from the show is inexplicable. Any of these artists are as abstract as most of what is in the show. In fact, Comic Abstraction assiduously avoids the cultural critique it claims to represent by selecting pieces that are ideologically safe and aspire mainly to the look of comic book culture, not the wit. As if in recognition of this, Juan Muñoz’s installation, “Waiting for Jerry” (1991) is situated in a side room by the show’s entrance. The lights are down and Looney Tunes music blares from speakers. The only thing in the room is a mouse hole lit from inside. Where’s Jerry the mouse? Like Comic Abstraction, “Waiting for Jerry” places you in a state of expectancy. But when you bend down and look inside the mouse hole, nothing’s there.
RECOMMENDED ARTICLES

Come to Your Census: Who Counts in America?
By Osman Can YerebakanJUNE 2020 | ArtSeen
The core of the YBCA’s census awareness program was and still is a group exhibition titled Come to Your Census: Who Counts in America?, in which more than 20 artists, mostly from the Bay Area, could exhibit their work on citizenship and civic presence, supported by workshops and performances in line with the organization’s multidisciplinary program.

Epic Abstraction: Pollock to Herrera
By Benjamin CliffordFEB 2019 | ArtSeen
The title of the Met’s new ongoing installation, Epic Abstraction: Pollock to Herrera, suggests a revisionist take on the history of abstraction since World War II. However, the show is drawn almost entirely from the permanent collection, which is simply not broad enough in this area to fulfill such an ambitious promise.

Tattfoo Tan: Heal the Man in Order to Heal the Land
By Kristen RacanielloMAY 2019 | ArtSeen
Heal the Man in Order to Heal the Land breaks from Tattfoo Tans past focus on environmental consciousness. Here mental health and self-awareness supersede environment, indicating a new avenue in his exploration of ecological activism.
Living Through History: ABSCONDED #EjectionDay2020
By Noa WeissDEC 20-JAN 21 | Dance
As the slow crawl of ballot counting across America began on November 3, Dragonfly/Robin Laverne Wilson performed her own crawl through the streets of New York. Dressed as a statue of fugitive slave Ona Maria Judge Staines, the artist summons the power of a living monument.