But does the nation's capital of artisanal bitters really need another nostalgia-soaked outpost for herb muddling? - Andrea K. Scott, “Tables For Two: Maison Premiere” (The New Yorker, September 26, 2011)
Saturday, March 30, 2013
March 25, 2013 Issue
Dogs, hip-hop, punk, opera, TV, “failure memoir,” paranoid
billionaire – at first glance, the contents of the March 25th New
Yorker appear most unappetizing. But
there’s always something in every issue – a line of sharp description, a
piquant observation, a pungent detail – to appreciate. This week’s issue is no
exception. I enjoyed William Finnegan’s “The Miner’s Daughter” for its
description of Port Hedland (“Ancient-looking, iron-covered conveyor belts
lattice the badlands”; “Bulk-carrier ships hunker like squared-off stadiums
beyond the evaporation ponds”). And Anthony Lane’s review of Spring
Breakers contains a line that went straight
into my personal anthology of great New Yorker questions: “Who, you want to ask, can possibly be
the magus behind this bacchanal – this forthright sucking of Popsicles, this
spume of beer hosed across bare flesh, this char-grilled day?”
What, you may ask, are some of the other “great New
Yorker questions” in my collection? Here
are three:
To the palate of a traveling Martian – which would be more
acceptable, a pink-icinged Pop-Tart with raspberry filling (cold) or the fat
gob from behind a caribou’s eye? – John McPhee, “The Encircled River – I” (The
New Yorker, May 2, 1977)
How radical can you be in a town where the locals shop in
leopard-skin bikinis at 4P.M.? – Sasha Frere-Jones, “Critic’s Notebook: South
For Winter” (The New Yorker, March 20,
2006)
But does the nation's capital of artisanal bitters really need another nostalgia-soaked outpost for herb muddling? - Andrea K. Scott, “Tables For Two: Maison Premiere” (The New Yorker, September 26, 2011)
But does the nation's capital of artisanal bitters really need another nostalgia-soaked outpost for herb muddling? - Andrea K. Scott, “Tables For Two: Maison Premiere” (The New Yorker, September 26, 2011)
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Paper Rooms: The Art of Interior Description in "New Yorker" Profiles
Fairfield Porter, Interior with a Dress Pattern (1969) |
Alec Wilkinson, in his recent “Jazz Hands” (The New
Yorker, March 11, 2013), a profile of the jazz
pianist Jason Moran, misses a glorious opportunity to describe Moran’s Harlem
apartment. He says that the living room has “a view of the Hudson River” and
that it contains an “upright piano from his parents’ house.” But with regard to
how the room is furnished and decorated, he doesn’t say. Wilkinson would no
doubt scoff at my hunger for such details. “Jazz Hands” is, after all, a piece
about jazz, not interior decoration. Nevertheless, descriptions of the rooms in
which people live help illumine their character.
John Updike, in his absorbing essay “Fictional Houses” (Odd
Jobs, 1991), refers to “the cozy quality of
the brick rows of Pennsylvania small towns” and “the many subtle styles, much
patched and revised, of wooden farmhouses” in New England, and says, “To
describe these houses is halfway to describe the life lived in them.” In my
opinion, the same can be said about the rooms, apartments, lofts, offices, and
other places that the subjects of New Yorker profiles live, work, and hang out in: to describe
these places is “halfway to describe the life lived in them.”
Whitney Balliett, in his great jazz profiles, often
depicted the rooms his subjects lived and performed in. For example, in his
“The Human Sound” (The New Yorker,
December 26, 1970; included in Balliett’s 1979 collection American
Singers), a profile of Bobby Short, he
describes Short’s Carnegie Hall apartment as follows:
The small foyer on the first floor contained a desk, a big
Queen Anne armchair, a bicycle, and a staircase. A turn-around kitchen opened
off it. The living room, at the top of the stairs, was two stories high, with a
vaulted ceiling and a row of high windows facing north. At one end were a small
bar, a bathroom, and a second set of stairs. The stairs led to a spacious
balcony, which served as Short’s bedroom. A bedroom window faced a small roof,
where his cats, Rufus and Miss Brown, were aired. The furnishings were
high-class Camp. A heavy glass-topped coffee table rested on a zebra-skin rug,
and on the rug, beneath the table, were two metal lizards—one gilt, one brass.
A pair of big daybeds, which were covered with bright African-looking material
and leopard-skin pillows, flanked the table. Near the foyer stairs were a huge
wooden lion, a stolid eighteenth-century Italian refectory table, and one of
those roofed-in wicker wing chairs that still haunt old summer cottages on
Naushon Island. An antler chandelier hung in the living room, and it was echoed
by a Teddy Roosevelt leather chair with tusks as arms. Pictures of every
description jammed the walls, and the window side of the room was lined with
books and bric-a-brac.
Balliett’s room descriptions are so lovingly detailed, I want to enter them, sit in that Teddy Roosevelt
chair with the tusk arms, and soak up the atmosphere. Here’s another Balliett
apartment description – this from his great Jim Hall profile, “The Answer Is
Yes” (The New Yorker, March 31, 1975;
included in his 1977 collection Improvising):
When the Halls were married, he moved into her apartment,
on West Twelfth Street. It faces south and is at eye level with chimney pots
and the tops of ailanthus trees. Sunlight fills the living room all day. The
off-white walls are hung with a lively assortment of lithographs, oils, and
drawings. A tall cabinet, which contains hundreds of L.P.s, is flanked by full
bookshelves. A sofa, a hassock, a fat floor pillow, a couple of canvas Japanese
chairs, and a coffee table ring the window end of the room. An upright piano
sits by the front door, and Hall’s electric guitar rests on a stand by the
kitchen door.
The above-quoted passages are typical Balliett apartment
descriptions. They’re almost “description for description’s sake,” akin to 17th
century Dutch still life – “devised as a feast for the attentive eye” (Svetlana
Alpers, The Art of Describing, 1983).
It seems to me that New Yorker descriptions of physical interiors divide into at
least three categories:
1. Description done purely for the pleasure of describing interesting, beautiful things;
3. Description that furthers narrative.
The first two types are closely linked. For instance,
Balliett descriptions are both “feasts for the attentive eye” and illustrations of the occupants’ lifestyle. A classic
example of the third category is found in Janet Malcolm’s Ingrid Sischy
profile, “A Girl of the Zeitgeist” (The New Yorker, October 20 & 27, 1986; included in Malcolm’s
1992 collection The Purloined Clinic).
Malcolm begins her brilliant piece with a description of Rosalind Krauss’s
loft:
Rosalind Krauss’s loft, on Greene Street, is one of the
most beautiful living places in New York. Its beauty has a dark, forceful,
willful character. Each piece of furniture and every object of use or
decoration has evidently had to pass a severe test before being admitted into
this disdainfully interesting room – a long, mildly begloomed rectangle with
tall windows at either end, a sachlich
white kitchen area in the center, a study, and a sleeping balcony. An
arrangement of geometric dark-blue armchairs around a coffee table forms the
loft’s sitting room, also furnished with, among other rarities, an antique
armchair on splayed, carved feet and upholstered in a dark William Morris
fabric; an assertive all-black Minimalist shaped-felt piece; a strange
black-and-white photograph of ocean water; and a gold owl-shaped Art Deco table
clock. But perhaps even stronger than the room’s aura of commanding originality
is its sense of absences, its evocation of all the things that have been
excluded, have been found wanting, have failed to capture the interest of
Rosalind Krauss – which are most of the things in the world, the things of
“good taste” and fashion and consumerism, the things we see in stores and in
one another’s houses. No one can leave this loft without feeling a little
rebuked: one’s own house suddenly seems cluttered, inchoate, banal.
Malcolm’s piece is structured around apartments, lofts,
and studios. It uses them not just as organizing principles, but as a means of
analyzing their occupants’ various notions of style.
An example of a room
description that falls in all three of the above categories is Mark
Singer’s memorable depiction of Goodman Ace’s living room (“Goody,” The New
Yorker, April 4, 1977; re-titled
“Words Fool Me,” and included in Singer’s wonderful 1988 collection Mr.
Personality):
These days, the cottage of Ace’s own cottage industry is his
apartment in the Ritz Tower – four spacious rooms of white walls and
black-and-white tiles. The living room leads to a terrace that offers a view of
Park Avenue below and Central Park to the northwest. Ace often used to sit on
the terrace and read and work – a habit he sustained until a few years ago,
when flocks of pigeons began to roost there. “Shoo, pigeons!” didn’t get rid of
the birds, nor did the pigeon repellants, plastic windmills, or signs that said
“No Pigeons Allowed,” so he finally gave up and retreated indoors. The
apartment contains the same furniture that it has had for twenty years – off-white
leather upholstery, a vague flavor of Art-Deco-in-decline, the aura of a stage
setting. On one of the armchairs, there is a green cushion with white
lettering that says, “LAUGHTER IS
THE MUSIC OF THE HEART.” A white grand piano stands in one corner of the room,
and atop the piano are a ceramic vase filled with artificial roses, a
thirty-year-old photograph of Jane Ace, an unframed photograph of Groucho
inscribed “Dear Goody, Here Is Me. Groucho,” and an ineluctably stubborn pile
of unanswered mail.
That “ineluctably stubborn
pile of unanswered mail” functions as a segue to a discussion of Ace’s letter
writing, particularly his Groucho Marx correspondence.
Interior description in today’s New Yorker profiles isn’t as detailed as it once was. The
mention of one or two telling particulars appears to be preferred to extensive
notation of a room’s contents. For example, here is the extent of David
Remnick’s description of Israeli spymaster Meir Dagan’s Tel Aviv apartment: “The
apartment is decorated with his canvases. They are naïve, sentimental,
Orientalist—desert landscapes, a Bedouin, an old man in the Iranian town of
Tabriz” (“The Vegetarian,” The New Yorker, September 3, 2012). In two quick, vivid strokes, Lauren Collins
sketches the Paris office of Gerard Depaerdieu’s lawyer, Hervé Temime: “Temime,
who represented Roman Polanski, sat at a desk, in front of spectacular windows
framed by bright-yellow velour curtains. His printer was filled with
bright-yellow paper” (“L’Étranger,” The New Yorker, February 25, 2013). Elizabeth Kolbert vivifies a
room in Oostvaardersplassen’s administrative offices when she writes, “Vera
picked me up one day at my hotel in Lelystad, and we drove over to the
reserve’s administrative offices, where we had a cup of coffee in a room
decorated with the mounted head of a very large black Heck bull” (“Recall of
the Wild” (The New Yorker,
December 24 & 31, 2012).
There are exceptions to the minimalist approach. Jeffrey
Toobin, in his “Madoff’s Curveball” (The New Yorker, May 30, 2011) neatly conveys the look of Fred
Wilpon’s office as follows:
The headquarters of the Wilpon empire resembles an English
manor house transplanted to a high floor in Rockefeller Center. Wood panelling,
thick carpets, and pastoral landscapes in heavy frames offer a serene contrast
to the hubbub below. Soft drinks are decanted into crystal glasses. (No Coke;
Pepsi is a Mets sponsor.) True, the muted television in the reception area is
set to SNY—the Wilpons’ successful cable sports channel—and there is the
obligatory LeRoy Neiman painting. But the Neiman shows the trading floor of the
New York Stock Exchange, rather than his customary jock kitsch, and the
over-all feel of the offices is boardroom, not locker room.
Judith Thurman, in her “Ask Betty” (The New Yorker, November 12, 2012), unreels an admirable
Balliettian run of interior detailing when she describes Betty Halbreich’s Park
Avenue apartment:
You could not describe Halbreich’s décor as soberly
tailored. The den is paneled in knotty cypress (“big in the fifties”), with
pink chintz upholstery (“It used to be tartan”). The master bedroom has gingham
walls and needlepoint rugs. There is a laundry suite, and a walk-in closet
dedicated to Christmas decorations. In the formal dining room (Wedgwood-blue walls,
opaline-glass chandelier, antique breakfront groaning with heirloom china),
Halbreich’s banquet table was set for two.
But these depictions pale in comparison with my all-time
favorite New Yorker interior description
– John McPhee’s masterful evocation of the room in Otto’s farmhouse restaurant
“where the customers sit and have their aperitifs while they wait for a message
from the kitchen that it is time to go to table for dinner” (“Brigade de
Cuisine,” The New Yorker,
February 19, 1979; included in McPhee’s classic 1979 collection Giving
Good Weight):
I remember from the first moment I walked into it the
compact and offhand rural European character and feeling of that room. With its
nonchalant miscellany of detail, it was beyond the margins of formal design,
but it was too pleasurable merely to have been flung together and too thematic
not to imply a tale. There were a pair of bullfighter prints – one called “La
Lidia” and the other a depiction of a desencajonamiento – and protruding sharp-horned from the wall between
these pictures was the head of a fighting bull. The animal had been raised on
the dehesa of Pepe Alvarez and
killed in the ring with a sword. Crossed Spanish swords had been hung above the
fire. All around the room were wrought-iron Spanish sconces with small amber
bulbs. There was a three-hundred-year-old map of the Danube, a
two-hundred-year-old map of “Magna Britannia.” There were hand-carved cabinets.
There were tall wicker chairs, Queen Anne chairs, and Spanish brass-studded leather
chairs in groups on a red tile floor. I eventually learned that many of these
things had come down through the chef’s family – to America from England via
Spain. There were heavy red curtains on brass rods. The ceiling slanted upward
in the mansard manner, with boards of tongue and groove. The silent paddle fan
hung down between exposed checked beams. Staring back at the bull were the
small glass eyes of a taxidermal fox – just its head and neck, on a plaque –
and near it were photographs made in Alaska of dog foxes and vixens. A poster
in one corner said “Extinct is forever” and presented line drawings of
vanishing and vanished creatures – Cape lion (1860), quagga (1883), Labrador
duck (1875), solenodon, snow leopard, northern kit fox.
Lofts, apartments, offices, farmhouses, rooms, having been
willfully acquired, furnished, and decorated tell us much about their
occupants, and their description is a major resource of the art of the
profile.
Monday, March 25, 2013
Interesting Emendations: David Denby's "Jungle Fever"
Hearing the sad news of Chinua Achebe’s death, I recalled
David Denby’s “Jungle Fever” (The New Yorker, November 6, 1995) – one of the best “A Critic At Large” pieces ever
to appear in the magazine – in which Denby argues against Achebe’s potent
charge that Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness is racist. A version of “Jungle Fever” appears as
chapter 27, titled “Conrad,” in Denby’s wonderful 1996 Great Books.
Comparing the two versions, I notice a couple of
interesting differences. Firstly, the Great Books version uses slightly stronger language to describe the racism
argument. For example, it says that Heart of Darkness “could be read as racist by anyone ruthless
enough to detach its representation of life from meaning” (emphasis added).
This sentence isn’t in the New Yorker piece. The book version also says, “Still, one has to wonder if
blaming writers for what they fail to write about is not a bizarrely
wrongheaded or even malicious way of reading them” (emphasis added). The
New Yorker version of this
sentence uses “extraordinarily” instead of “bizarrely,” and omits “or even
malicious way of reading them.”
Secondly, the “pleasure” aspect of Denby’s argument in the
New Yorker piece is less pronounced than
it is in Great Books. Early in Great
Books, in a passage that I adopt as one of
this blog’s touchstones, Denby says,
I believe in pleasure, even in “immediate” pleasures,
“shallow” pleasures. Pleasure is the route to understanding; you expand on what
you love, going from one enthusiasm to the next, one book to the next, one
piece of music to the next, and finally what you wind up with as the sum of
these pleasures is your own soul.
In Great Books’
“Conrad” chapter, Denby describes Achebe’s (and Edward Said’s) approach in
terms of “their fear of narrative pleasure, their demand for correct
attitudes.” These words don’t appear in the New Yorker version. Neither does the brilliant question posed
near the end of the Great Books
version: “So what had pleasure learned, how had pleasure been corrected,
extended, or rebuffed?”
And when, in Great Books, Denby concedes a point to Achebe’s and Said’s approach, he says, “So let pleasure yield this much to the academic left: However wrong or extreme in individual cases, the academic left has alerted readers to the possible hidden assumptions in language and point of view.” The New Yorker version drops the “So let pleasure yield this much” and simply says, “However wrong or extreme in individual cases, the academic left has alerted readers to the possible hidden assumption in language and point of view.”
Both versions make a powerful case for Heart of
Darkness as a work of “daunting intricacy.”
(Great Books says, “daunting”; The
New Yorker says, “spectacular.”) I prefer
the Great Books version slightly
more because it argues the pleasure principle.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Subhankar Banerjee's "Sheenjek River II"
Subhankar Banerjee, Sheenjek River II (2002) |
Subhankar Banerjee’s landscape photograph Sheenjek River II (2002) is stunning. It’s used to illustrate Ian Frazier’s absorbing review of Banerjee’s Arctic Voices: Resistance at the Tipping Point (“In the Beautiful, Threatened North,” The New York Review of Books, March 7, 2013). Luminous, exquisite, pale gray-blue-mauve intermingling with pearl and aquamarine, almost abstract like a Helen Frankenthaler – it takes my breath away.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
March 18, 2013 Issue
David Owen is on a roll – three features in less
than two months: “The Psychology of Space” (The New Yorker, January 21, 2013) about the Norwegian architecture
firm Snøhetta; “Hands Across America” (The New Yorker, March 4, 2013) on the rise of Purell hand
sanitizer; and now, in this week’s issue, “Notes From Under Ground” about
Florida sinkholes and dry-downs. All three are immensely informative and
enjoyable. They consist of an amazing range of variegated materials and ideas:
Oslo Opera House, collectivist approach, Alexandria Library, keyless
structures, Norwegian Wild Reindeer Center Pavilion, World Trade Center,
visitor flow model, Times Square, de-cluttering, Gojo’s headquarters,
hand-hygiene lab, formulation lab, breakfast buffet table, treatment-resistant
pathogens, compliance monitoring system, Lake Jackson, karst, Talahassee,
Floridan Aquifier, Church Sink, deep-water cave divers, Wakulla Springs, Turner
Sink, Weeki Wachee Springs, Sinkhole Alley, sinkhole investors.
Owen’s choice of material, guided by his acute perception,
generates his vivid factual style, e.g., “He and Goldie mixed the first batches
in the washing machine in the basement of Goldie’s parents’ house – they were
living the attic – and packaged the finished product in pickle jars that Jerry
salvaged from area restaurants” (“Hands Across America”); “As we waited for an
express at Fourteenth Street, he said that in most stations you can anticipate
where the doors of the next train will open by looking for concentrations of
chewing-gum splats near the edges of the platforms” (“The Psychology of
Space”); “The mermaids smiled a lot, breathed from what looked like gas-station
hoses, and did a pretty good job of using awkward-seeming tails to propel
themselves across the stage, a deep spring that is part of the Floridan
Aquifier” (“Notes from Underground”).
I relish his use of “I” (“One afternoon, Dykers and I met at
his office and then took the subway uptown to look at the site”; “When I met
him, at Gojo’s headquaters, he told me that he began working there as a young
boy, and that one of his firsr assignments was sitting on freshly glued
shipping cartons, to keep the flaps from popping open”; “I was taken on a tour
by Jim Arbogast, a scientist who came to work at Gojo in 2002”; “During a
recent trip to Europe, I was mildly alarmed to find no serving tongs in the
breadbasket on my hotel’s breakfast-buffet table: the only way to pick up a
croissant was with my fingers”; “Early the next morning, I met the divers for
breakfast at their favorite Tallahassee assembly point, the Village Inn on
Apalachee Parkway”; “I couldn’t see into the backyard, but two children on the
sidewalk hollered, ‘We walked in the sinkhole!’”).
Owen is a subjectivist par excellence. I enjoy his work enormously.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
March 11, 2013 Issue
Is it crass to rue the lack of melody in the playing of a
jazz standard? I wonder this as I listen to Jason Moran’s abstract version of Johnny
Green’s great “Body and Soul” (on Moran’s 2002 album Modernicity). Moran’s interpretation renders the song almost
unrecognizable. Whitney Balliett wrote, “Jazz fans relish the shock of melodic
recognition and when it doesn’t come they grow disoriented and gloomy” (Collected
Works, 2000). That’s the way I feel about
Moran’s “Body and Soul.” In a profile of Moran, titled “Jazz Hands,” in this
week’s New Yorker, Alec Wilkinson
says that Moran “often uses only the parts of a song that appeal to him – in
his version of ‘Body and Soul,’ the most recorded standard in jazz, he plays
only the A part.” This is an interesting approach, but while I respect the
effort, I’m not crazy about the result. It’s like taking a beautiful green
artichoke and stripping it of its leaves just to get to its heart. Alec Wilder
called “Body and Soul” an “enormously innovative song” (American
Popular Song, 1972). It deserves homage,
not deconstruction.
Nevertheless, “Jazz Hands” itself is a wonderful piece of
writing. It contains three “visits” that I enjoyed
immensely: to a practice room at the New England Conservatory of Music, in
Boston, where Moran gives lessons to three students; to the KC Jazz Club at the
Kennedy Center, where Moran’s group Bandwagon, plus Bill Frisell, rehearsed;
and to the Village Vanguard, where Bandwagon was playing. Wilkinson’s evocation
of the scene inside the Village Vanguard is superb. When he says, “One
night, I occupied the last seat on the banquette, which is beside the drum set
and is called the drummer’s seat, because drummers like to sit there to
observe,” I smiled appreciatively. This is exactly the kind of personal,
specific, journalistic observation I devour. “Jazz Hands”’s ending is equally marvelous:
What I remember most clearly was a moment, at the end of a passage of frantic playing, when, suddenly quiet, all three had their hands poised, their eyes closed, and their breath held. They seemed to be listening as acutely as animals in the woods. Each was waiting for one of the others to make a sound. Instead, a small smile formed on Moran’s lips, and he slowly lowered his hands to his lap, and, without opening their eyes, the others lowered theirs, too.
What I remember most clearly was a moment, at the end of a passage of frantic playing, when, suddenly quiet, all three had their hands poised, their eyes closed, and their breath held. They seemed to be listening as acutely as animals in the woods. Each was waiting for one of the others to make a sound. Instead, a small smile formed on Moran’s lips, and he slowly lowered his hands to his lap, and, without opening their eyes, the others lowered theirs, too.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Cécile McLorin Salvant - The Sound of Surprise
Interpretation of the great American Songbook is overdue for
major renovation. I know just the singer for the job. Her name is Cécile
McLorin Salvant. I first learned about her in a “Goings On About Town” note on
Lincoln Center’s “American Songbook” series: “The swinging singer Cécile McLorin
Salvant, who has a vocal warmth to match her rhythmic ease, is a vibrant
neo-traditionalist who makes the old new again” (“Jazz and Standards,” The
New Yorker, February 4, 2013). Not
recognizing the name, I went to iTunes to see if there were any samples of her
work. I found a 2010 album called Cécile, containing ten songs. I decided to buy it. I’ve been listening to it
ever since. Whoever wrote that anonymous New Yorker blurb knows what he/she is talking about. “Swinging”
is exactly the right word to describe Salvant’s singing, along with
“delightful,” “inventive,” “agile,” “rangy,” “magnetic,” “calm,” and “assured.”
Her rhythms and inflections and accents change continually. Her voice seems
capable of endless colors and timbres. Her dynamics are consummate. On Cécile, she sings an exquisite version of Gigi Gryce’s
“Social Call.” Ben Ratliff, reviewing her performance at Dizzy’s Club
Coca-Cola, says, “She radiates authority” (“A Young Vocalist Tweaks Expectations,”
The New York Times, November 2,
2012). Ratliff’s piece is illustrated with a video of Salvant singing Richard
Rodgers’s “I Didn’t Know What Time It Was.” What a mesmerizing rendition! She perfectly expresses that great song’s mysterioso quality. There’s a fascinating YouTube video of her singing
Harry Warren’s “I Only Have Eyes For You” in which she repeats “disappear,” in
the line “You are here, so am I / Maybe millions of people go by / But they
all disappear from view / And I only have eyes for you,” an astounding eight times. It’s
an amazing interpretation. Salvant’s singing has what Whitney Balliett
identified as jazz’s defining characteristic – the sound of surprise.
Credit: The above photograph of Cécile McLorin Salvant is by Tony Cenicola; it appears in The New York Times (November 2, 2012), as an illustration for Ben Ratliff's “A Young Vocalist Tweaks Expectations.”
Saturday, March 2, 2013
March 4, 2013 Issue
Pauline Kael, in the Introduction to her great For Keeps (1994), said, “I’m frequently asked why I don’t
write my memoirs. I think I have.” Peter Schjeldahl could say the same thing.
Bits of his life are embedded here and there throughout his reviews. For
example, in his splendid “Warhol In Bloom” (The New Yorker, March 11, 2002; included in his 2008 collection Let’s
See), a review of the Tate Modern’s 2002
Andy Warhol retrospective, he hints at the circumstances that clinched his
decision to become an art critic:
Announcing that pleasure will be the show’s keynote, De
Salvo [Tate curator] begins with a group of Flowers – large silk-screen
paintings from 1964 and 1967 that ring changes on a motif of flat hibiscus
blossoms against a grainy ground of grass blades. (Warhol cribbed the image
from a tiny black-and-white ad in a magazine.) The choice elated me, because a
Flowers show in Paris, in 1965, was one of two experiences I had that year that
inspired a vocational devotion to art. (The other was a Piero della Francesca
fresco in Tuscany.)
Now, eleven years later, we learn the details of
Schjeldahl’s epiphanic Piero della Francesca encounter. In his lovely “Heaven
On Earth,” in this week’s issue, Schjeldah writes:
One hot August, when I was twenty-three, I traversed Tuscany
on the back of a Vespa driven by a painter friend, George Schneeman. We had
seen Piero’s magnum opus, the “Legend of the True Cross” frescoes, in Arezzo,
which I found bewildering, and were headed northeast, to the artist’s home town
of Sansepolcro, the site of his famous “Resurrection of Christ” (“the best
picture in the world,” according to Aldous Huxley), which I also failed to make
much of. Then we stopped at a tiny cemetery chapel, in the hill town of
Monterchi, to see Piero’s highly unusual “Madonna del Parto.” An immensely
pregnant but delicately elegant young Mary stands pensively in a bell-shaped
tent, as two mirror-image angels sweep aside the flaps to reveal her. One angel
wears green, the other purple. Here was the circumstantial drama of a ripeness
with life in a place of death. George told me a sentimental, almost certainly untrue
story that the work memorialized a secret mistress of Piero’s who had died in
childbirth. This befitted the picture’s held-breath tenderness and its air of
sharing a deeply felt, urgent mystery. In another age, the experience might
have made me consider entering a monastery. Instead, I became an art critic.
That “held-breath tenderness” is inspired! Schjeldahl is one
of The New Yorker’s most distinctive
stylists. I enjoy his work immensely. And to think it all began forty-eight
years ago with Andy Warhol and Piero della Francesco – amazing!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)