Organisations outside the art world are often better at reaching underserved populations and improving accessibility, writes Catherine G. Wagley. Why isn't the sector deferring to the experts?
'I did not know, when I first saw Willem de Kooning’s late 1980s paintings, that he had suffered from Alzheimer’s. I just knew that he made this work when he was older, and that, while still aesthetically masterful, they seemed far more minimal, less conflicted and less overfull than his earlier work. The marketing of this as a late-career renaissance — a Christie’s catalogue dismissed those who identified his “stark change in style” with his changing health, arguing that “this late” and “quite distinct” work “was actually a result of clearer thinking” — felt uncomfortable, especially given the $8-10 million price tags. Later, when I learned of his Alzheimer’s, the vagueness in the paintings read differently to me, and the work became more interesting because it registered a neurological shift, but the marketing remained just as off-putting. When Michael Glover wrote about a Skarstedt Gallery exhibition of late de Koonings in 2017, he described the gallery director brushing away his questions about Alzheimer’s, saying “a new lightness” had entered de Kooning’s work. Admitting his “decline” would potentially pose a threat to his market, and since he painted much faster towards the end of his life (rumors have percolated over the decades that disproportionate “help” from studio assistants accelerated production), the market for his late work remains healthy. But what would be the harm in admitting that de Kooning’s own changing mind changed his work? ' ... Keep reading on Hyperallergic
'I did not know, when I first saw Willem de Kooning’s late 1980s paintings, that he had suffered from Alzheimer’s. I just knew that he made this work when he was older, and that, while still aesthetically masterful, they seemed far more minimal, less conflicted and less overfull than his earlier work. The marketing of this as a late-career renaissance — a Christie’s catalogue dismissed those who identified his “stark change in style” with his changing health, arguing that “this late” and “quite distinct” work “was actually a result of clearer thinking” — felt uncomfortable, especially given the $8-10 million price tags. Later, when I learned of his Alzheimer’s, the vagueness in the paintings read differently to me, and the work became more interesting because it registered a neurological shift, but the marketing remained just as off-putting. When Michael Glover wrote about a Skarstedt Gallery exhibition of late de Koonings in 2017, he described the gallery director brushing away his questions about Alzheimer’s, saying “a new lightness” had entered de Kooning’s work. Admitting his “decline” would potentially pose a threat to his market, and since he painted much faster towards the end of his life (rumors have percolated over the decades that disproportionate “help” from studio assistants accelerated production), the market for his late work remains healthy. But what would be the harm in admitting that de Kooning’s own changing mind changed his work? ' ... Keep reading on Hyperallergic