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, December 25, 2020

December 28, 2020 Issue

In the last New Yorker of this uniquely trying year, I’m seeking pleasure. I think I’ve found it – a delicious sentence in Peter Schjeldahl’s “What Are Artists For?” Reviewing MOMA’s “Engineer, Agitator, Constructor: The Artist Reinvented, 1918-1939,” he says,

Art happens when someone wants to do it. Advertising and propaganda start from given ends and work backward to means. There’s just enough genuine art in the exhibition to hone this point. The small Malevich, of cockeyed red and black squares on white, elates. Then there’s my favorite work, which I’d like to steal: a version of the sublimely sophisticated Liubov Popova’s “Production Clothing for Actor No. 7” (1922). A black-caped, robotic figure extends a square red sleeve like a smuggled Suprematist banner. Personal flair and practical use merge.

That “The small Malevich, of cockeyed red and black squares on white, elates” is superb. Even more sublime is Schjeldahl’s description of the Popova: “A black-caped, robotic figure extends a square red sleeve like a smuggled Suprematist banner.” Schjeldahl has been writing inspired lines like that all year. He’s The New Yorker’s supreme pleasure-giver. 

No comments:

Post a Comment