September 2010

Explore the Apollo archive

Look back over two vibrant years of Apollo: browse every issue from January 2006 to the present day.

An interesting schism among art critics has revealed itself following news of Robert Rauschenberg’s death last week. Tributes abounded to the avant-garde Pop artist – The Guardian’s Jonathan Jones saluted Rauschenberg as the ‘man who first made him want to write about art’; The New York Times describes the artist as having ‘time and again reshaped art in the 20th century’; and the Wall Street Journal claimed Rauschenberg as ‘the biggest innovator in art after Jackson Pollock.’ High praise indeed – but not by any means unchallenged. The New Republic argued that Rauschenberg’s work has been protected ‘by a sort of critical silence’ and that his juxtaposition of objects and images fails to achieve alchemy but manages the arbitrary. Furthermore, it asks if our interest in the ‘bohemian bad boy’ is partly the attraction of suspicion aroused by a magnificent fraud? In a similar vein, Slate Magazine questions why the critics are silent on the quality of Rauschenberg’s 6,000 paintings and sculptures (not to mention the prints and multiples). Art factory or artist? Of the amusing anecdote in which Rauschenberg asked Willem de Kooning for a drawing, then erased every line and called it Erased de Kooning Drawing, the LA Times cites as evidence of ‘creative overdrive.’ Or is it simply cheeky nihilism? Either way, it’s appropriate that an artist who courted controversy is still causing friction from beyond the grave, but the voices of dissent might encourage us to put down our newspapers and take another look.

   Previous Back to Muse   Next 

ShareThis  |   Print this article  |   Subscription offers  |   Comment