e-flux Conversations has been closed to new contributions and will remain online as an archive. Check out our new platform for short-form writing, e-flux Notes.

e-flux conversations

Is the New York Times' review of Michelle Grabner's exhibition misogynistic?

In a short review in the New York Times, Ken Johnson describes Michelle Grabner’s current exhibition at James Cohan Gallery in New York—which includes works from and about Grabner’s domestic environment—in the following terms:

“Nothing in all this is more interesting than the unexamined sociological background of the whole. If the show were a satire of the artist as a comfortably middle-class tenured professor and soccer mom, it would be funny and possibly illuminating, but it’s not.”

Is the review misogynistic?

I’m probably not qualified to really answer this, but I noticed that Alex Jovanovich writing in Art Forum touched on similar points without the air of condescension. But maybe that’s because one is a positive review while the other is negative.

Misogynistic, probably. Personally, it illustrates (more or less) how cynical critics (and mostly the art world) have become. For something to be valid, it must be satirical–not always the case. For a work to push any boundaries it does not have to carry a jaded weight. Seeing as how recent journalism has expressed individuals’ distastes for spending time alone for reflection/introspection, maybe for an artist like Grabner to reflect upon her own experience as a wife, mother, woman, etc should be considered radical and boundary-pushing.

Quite frankly (as a critic myself) I am exhausted by how often artists these days are trying to get a fast laugh. For her to follow Mr. Johnson’s advice would mean for Grabner to resort to a one-liner approach. Instead, she takes a road which forces one to meditate on her experience…maybe it would prompt viewers to do the same and look within. Wouldn’t that be far more impactful than just a slap on the thigh after a fast guffaw?

Also, calling her a “soccer mom” is just as enraging as a critic calling a female gallery employee a “gallerina.” It is reductive and bland. A nice try at illustrating his point: When you give up on the intellectual capacities of your readers (or viewers, which he apparently has)–aka when you’ve gotten cynical–you resort to saying (or making) work that grazes the surface, eliciting nothing more than one’s shallow emotions.

Critics demand cynical work -->artists produce shallow work -->dumbing down of viewers, narrowing experience of art itself.

Apologies for turning this into a discussion of the role of criticism. But Mr. Johnson, though entitled to his opinion, is a part of + furthering the problem by making these types of “suggestions.”


For reference, here’s artist Amy Sillman’s letter to the editor of New York Times:

Dear Art Editor,
I was shocked to read the review of Michelle Grabner’s exhibition by Ken Johnson in last Friday’s NYT, in which he basically summarizes Grabner’s show as that of a bland and witless mom. Grabner has an extraordinary CV: besides being an artist, and as he noted, a Professor at a major art school, and one of the curators of the last Whitney Biennial, Grabner is also a regularly published critic, co-curator/director of two experimental art spaces, and the subject of a museum survey show last year. Yet the NYT apparently saw no problem in printing a piece of writing about her whose primary criticism is her seeming lifestyle, and in which the characterization of her is not only the somewhat demeaning category “mom,” but the further boiled-down, more dismissive category of “soccer mom.” Johnson doesn’t even get his facts right: for example, he omits entirely the information from the exhibition’s introductory video about Grabner’s study of math, science and philosophy. It’s simply lazy to overlook this, and to mis-state the work’s own terms. Johnson concludes that Grabner has no satire: the two art spaces that Grabner co-runs are called “the Suburban” and “Poor Farm.” Does Johnson really think that Grabner is so naïve that when she portrays herself making a pie, she is doing so without any self-consciousness about her position in the world as a Midwesterner and a mother, as well as artist/curator/professor? (And hasn’t he ever heard of “normcore”?) This kind of condescending writing is a pattern with Johnson. Major complaints of racism and sexism have been lodged before about his writing, most recently two years ago when he was called out widely in public for “irresponsible generalities” regarding women and black artists. Once again, Johnson hangs his so-called criticism on his subject personally, in terms that seem to both diagnose her and reduce her to a cliché of her demographic. That’s textbook sexism. Johnson has the right to say whatever he wants about the work, but the point is how and why. What does it mean that the NYT does not seem to care about the politics of his language? I’m not surprised by Johnson’s writing at this point, but I am surprised that this insulting review could pass muster with the Editor of the New York Times.
Amy Sillman

Here is Ken Johnson’s response:

  1. I don’t think Grabner’s resume should place her above criticism. Sillman doesn’t mention, by the way, that Grabner curated her (Sillman’s) paintings into this year’s Whitney Biennial. She’s not exactly a disinterested observer.
  2. I thought that in a short review, simply describing the works in the show would be enough for an informed reader to get the underlying conceptual/feminist dimension of Grabner’s project. Had I spelled it out, it still would not have changed what I felt was an irritating spirit of self-satisfaction and obliviousness to her own privileged social position in the exhibition. Normcore or not, I still think the works in the show are bland and not in an illuminating way. They certainly didn’t make me care about the math and science of paper weaving.
  3. I may have underestimated the degree to which Grabner intended the show as self-satire. If so, I’d say the show wasn’t satirical enough. That would only slightly modify my basic criticism. If Grabner did intend self-satire, than why would Sillman object to my idea of satirizing what I characterize as “the comfortably middle-class, tenured professor soccer mom”? This seems to me contradictory on Sillman’s part and humorlessly so. (I once was a soccer dad married to a soccer mom who also was a tenured professor of art. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being a soccer mom.)
  4. Sillman’s charges of racism and sexism are slanderous and based on misreadings of two of the thousands of things I’ve written for the Times over the years. You would think that Sillman would be more sensitive about tossing around such accusations after Grabner was much criticized for including in the Whitney Biennial works by Joe Scanlan that were supposed to have been made by the fictional African American artist Donnelle Woolford and for not including more works by real black artists. It’s a serious thing to accuse someone of racism and sexism. If someone claims there’s a pattern of racism and sexism in what I’ve been writing over over the past 30 years, then that person should be obliged to prove it. I don’t think it’s provable in my case. I think it would be easier to prove the opposite.