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.

Friday, August 14, 2020

Interesting Emendations: Peter Schjeldahl's "Shapes of Things"


Sophie Taeuber-Arp, Vertical-Horizontal Composition (1916)

















Reading Johanna Fateman’s recent “Goings On About Town” note on Sophie Taeuber-Arp, I recalled Peter Schjeldahl’s wonderful “Shapes of Things” (The New Yorker, January 7, 2013), and decided to look it up. Its first paragraph is a beauty:

In “Inventing Abstraction, 1910-1925: How a Radical Idea Changed Modern Art,” a splendid historical survey at the Museum of Modern Art, the most beautiful work, for me, is “Vertical-Horizontal Composition” (1916), a small, framed wool needlepoint tapestry by Sophie Taeuber-Arp. Rectangles and squares in black, white, red, blue, gray, and two browns, arranged on an irregular grid, generate a slightly dissonant, gently jazzy visual harmony that is pleasantly at odds with the tapestry’s matter-of-fact, nubbly texture. The work bespeaks a subtle eye, a sober mind, and an ardent heart. If you could make something like that, you would drop everything else and do it. You wouldn’t need any great reason. I was mildly shocked by how unshocking Taeuber-Arp’s work is, amid rooms of strenuous sensations from the epoch of abstract art’s big bang. But, in a show that raises the question “Why?” at every turn, I kept coming back to it.

I think that’s one of my favorite art-review beginnings. The instant focus on a particular work – Taeuber-Arp’s “Vertical-Horizontal Composition”; the beautiful description of that work; the equally beautiful appreciation of it (“If you could make something like that, you would drop everything else and do it. You wouldn’t need any great reason”) – all these elements are delightful.

Schjeldahl included “Shapes of Things” in his splendid 2019 collection Hot, Cold, Heavy, Light under the title “Abstraction.” Comparing the book version with the New Yorker version, I notice that the description of Taeuber-Arp’s “Vertical-Horizontal Composition” is slightly different. Here’s the New Yorker version:

Rectangles and squares in black, white, red, blue, gray, and two browns, arranged on an irregular grid, generate a slightly dissonant, gently jazzy visual harmony that is pleasantly at odds with the tapestry’s matter-of-fact, nubbly texture.

And here’s the book version:

An irregular grid of rectangles and squares in black, white, red, blue, gray, and two browns, generate a slightly dissonant, gently jazzy visual harmony that is pleasantly at odds with the fabric’s’s matter-of-fact, nubbly texture.

Notice that “arranged” and “pleasantly” have been dropped, “tapestry” has been changed to “fabric,” and the phrase “an irregular grid” has been moved to the front of the sentence. Both versions are lovely, but I think I prefer the New Yorker version slightly more. Its use of zero article (“Rectangles and squares in black, white, red, blue, gray, and two browns, arranged on an irregular grid …”) enacts the abstraction it describes.

Postscript: I had difficulty finding online the “Vertical-Horizontal Composition” described by Schjeldahl. Taeuber-Arp created at least two in 1916, neither of which appear to fit his description. To illustrate my post, I chose the one that appeared to be the most “matter-of-fact, nubbly.”

No comments:

Post a Comment