Introduction

What is The New Yorker? I know it’s a great magazine and that it’s a tremendous source of pleasure in my life. But what exactly is it? This blog’s premise is that The New Yorker is a work of art, as worthy of comment and analysis as, say, Keats’s “Ode on a Grecian Urn.” Each week I review one or more aspects of the magazine’s latest issue. I suppose it’s possible to describe and analyze an entire issue, but I prefer to keep my reviews brief, and so I usually focus on just one or two pieces, to explore in each the signature style of its author. A piece by Nick Paumgarten is not like a piece by Jill Lepore, and neither is like a piece by Ian Frazier. One could not mistake Collins for Seabrook, or Bilger for Goldfield, or Mogelson for Kolbert. Each has found a style, and it is that style that I respond to as I read, and want to understand and describe.

Saturday, October 16, 2021

Thomas Meaney's "The Antagonist"

Neo Rauch (Photo by Lena Kunz)



















I find I’m not quite done with the October 4, 2021, issue. There’s another piece in it I want to comment on, namely, Thomas Meaney’s “The Antagonist.” It’s a profile of the German painter Neo Rauch. I relish Meaney’s first-person perspective, beautifully established in his opening sentence: “I first met the German painter Neo Rauch shortly before Christmas last year, in Leipzig.” Meaney attends a Rauch exhibition at the gallery Eigen + Art (“As I walked around, a small, puckish man fell into step beside me and started to talk to me about Rauch and the Leipzig art scene”). He visits Rauch at his home in Leipzig (“When I visited him at home in July, he looked haggard, having had a particularly disturbed sleep, but on this occasion there was an additional factor: a techno party nearby”). He visits Rauch’s studio (“I rode a freight elevator up to the top floor and went through a pair of unmarked metal doors”). He goes with Rauch to Aschersleben, where there’s a permanent museum dedicated to his work (“I met him at his house, and we lowered ourselves into his 1992 Porsche 911. ‘Brewster green,’ he commented. You have to special-order the color’”). He has lunch with Rauch (“Over ox cheeks in rich red-wine sauce, potatoes, and beer, I asked Rauch if he wasn’t exaggerating the confrontation between abstraction and figuration in the nineties”). I devoured all these scenes. The problem is that Rauch doesn’t come across as particularly likeable. “The Antagonist” is one of those pieces – Janet Malcolm’s profile of Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson is another one that quickly comes to mind – in which the subject comes across negatively. Yes, Meaney calls Rauch “the unrivalled German painter of his generation.” But he also quotes the art critic Wolfgang Ullrich: “What are we to think when Rauch compares feminists to the Taliban?” What are we to think when we’re told Rauch is a fan of Ernest Jünger, an ideologue of authoritarianism and a glorifier of war? Meaney has chosen an unpalatable subject – an extreme right-winger artist. He must’ve known this going in. He must’ve known that he was going to inveigle himself into Rauch’s good graces, eat and drink with him, hang out with him, and ultimately betray him in print. I admired “The Antagonist,” but I didn’t enjoy it. “Betrayal” pieces always make me squirm. I feel embarrassed for both writer and subject.

No comments:

Post a Comment