Missing the Dust Balls
by Jennifer Reeves
In order to avoid a further procrastinating of vacuuming the apartment, considerations of character are in order. Roberta Smith, art critic for The New York Times, touches on the subject of character in her review of the paintings of Fabian Marcaccio and Matthew Ritchie. Mark Cohen of NYArts and others have started the discussion and we’re fortunate this damp carpet has been taken up. Hopefully. The danger will be if we start making claims of adolescence without explaining why, aesthetically, the criticism applies. If judging art continues to be a sloth of popular opinions rather than a hot sudsy pail of skillful observations backed up with a nitty-gritty compositional knowledge.
According to Smith, Marcaccio’s art feels "too aggressively male." His painting techniques, although innovative, are simplistic and refer to philosophical ideas already explored. All in all, his talent would be better suited for "advertising, music video or horror films."
In the annals of art, what’s wrong with swinging one’s balls around? Marcaccio’s style is aggressive because his subject matter is dark, not because he’s macho. Thus the critic’s previous comment does not hold. Further, what does it matter when an artist is interested in ideas already explored, if the work visually contributes to the dialog? And Smith agrees Marcaccio is innovative. Yet, she finds his mode of expression simplistic. This may be true but there is a reason for it. His layering techniques are deliberately exposed because, in concept, they are closeups of philosophical breakups. All the loose ends show. The violence is apparent.
It seems Smith’s conclusions of the work are intuitively correct but weakly argued. Admittedly, the current show, although energetic, seems self-consciously so. As if the paintings weren’t enough. The moments of rapture Smith desires (and there are some) are overshadowed by the sideshows into sculpture. Perhaps the issue isn’t Marcaccio’s chest beating but rather his choice to include some tentative pieces which for all their wild swing of line do not contain the inspired variations of the paintings. Their rich hues and authoritative control of materials.
In comparison, Smith says Ritchie could use some of Marcaccio’s punch. A relevant point but no explanation is provided except for the critic’s view that Ritchie’s vision is too obscure. The criticism itself is too ambiguous. Is the position that the work would improve (now that representation is in vogue) if the paintings were less abstract? This might apply if the artist’s intent was to express a specific. But, Ritchie’s focus is an all encompassing composition of the Big Bang. More pointedly, the question is not one of subject matter but of execution. The reason for the storybook quality of the work (the lack of punch) is not because of Ritchie’s mysterious ideas but because of his illustrative touch and palette. Generally, the forms are equally defined and sized. Gradation of value exists within given shapes but not between shapes. And the colors match.
What all of this has to do with character is uncertain. Smith doesn’t address it in the end. Does she want Marcaccio to resist the urge to innovation in favor of inspiration? Does she think there is more courage to be found in balancing the two? The reader is guessing. And with Ritchie, does the critic want him to resist the lure of surface beauty with more, more…."adult knowingness and juice?" The view here, either, isn’t vindicated with specifics and so remains an opinion. A reluctance to pull out the sofa and vacuum underneath.
