Critics' Response to Three Artists: Elizabeth Murray, Richard Tuttle and Oscar Bluemner

This essay considers the critics' response to three artists: Elizabeth Murray, Richard Tuttle, and Oscar Bluemner. Through a careful consideration of what the critics have noted about the works of these artists, it will be possible to elucidate how critical opinion of artwork can shape how the individual views the artists' work even before actually observing it. Further, by exploring how the critics have responded to these artists, the variable nature of art criticism will be effectively illustrated.

Elizabeth Murray

Considering first the critics' opinions of Elizabeth Murray's work, a precursory overview of what has been written about appears to indicate the Murray's work has been well received by the critics. Westfall (2006) in his examination of the current retrospective of Murray's work on display at the New York Museum of Modern Art argues that Murray's work "makes a convincing case for her as one of the major painters of our time, able to synthesize many modes of modernist exploration while developing a vocabulary of domestic anxiety and pleasure" (p. 76). Westfall goes on to argue that Murray's current exhibit at the Museum reminds him of the spectacle of watching a dozen clowns emerge from a tiny clown car at the circus. While he argues that he finds clowns more frightening than funny, Murray's work fits into this analogy as being both surprising and frightening: "Murray's painting have long possessed a clownishness that embraces dark and light, a slapstick joy coexisting with abject terror and rue. Her Museum of Modern Art retrospective...makes it clear that her imagination is just as likely to incinerate the kids at a birthday party as entertain them with animal balloons" (p. 76).

In addition to providing an integral examination of the particular content presented by Murray in her work, Westfall also examines the specific classifications that define Murray's work. According to this critic, Murray's work encompasses "expressionist imagery with abstract form-giving" (p. 76). Westfall goes on to argue that: "Her mature paintings have long since twisted free of the convention of the rectangular pictorial field to writhe and shimmy on the wall like animate beings..." (p. 76). Westfall continues by noting that Murray's work is both interesting and evocative because when placed on the wall it appears as if it is alive. The artist's ability to capture a subject and bring it to life in such a gruesome and grotesque manner is seen by Westfall as the most prominent aspect of Murray's work. Overall, Westfall appears to be quite beholden with Murray's work and its perceived power to evoke a deep response on the part of the viewer.

Westfall is not the only author to appreciate Murray's unique style of painting. Plagens (2005) notes that 35 years ago when the art world had declared that painting was dead Murray stepped forward with a new style of painting that literally revolutionized the practice. Today at the age of 65, Murray is still attempting to reinvent painting to maintain its appeal and luster. "Although there's usually a figurative image in Murray's work-or a stage-whisper of one-the painting itself is always the thing. She doesn't paint in order to depict something; she depicts something-a cup, a dog, a bottle, a chair, a toy-as a springboard to a great composition" (p. 57). Thus, even though Murray has been painting for more than 35 years now, she is still able to capture both the attention of viewers and the specific nature of the subject that she is utilizing for her work.

In addition to her ability to keep painting alive, Plagens also argues that what makes Murray's work so unique is that it utilizes a cacophony of sources for inspiration-for instance Stuart Davis, Frank Stella, and/or downtown graffiti. Despite the wide number of overlays in her work however, Murray is able to keep track of each of the sources and make them each an integral part of the work. In addition to using a wide range of inspirations for each of her works, Plagens also notes that Murray uses repainting and wide color schemes to improve her work: "She isn't shy about repainting, however, and it shows in the elegant, brushy edges and the chromatic glow around her trademark images of tubes and water drops. It helps that she has the best full-blown color sense outside of...practically nobody" (p. 57). In the end, Plagens also notes the "aliveness" of Murray's work and argues that in spite of the sterility of the digital revolution, this aliveness is what will give Murray's work a beating heart 100 years from now.

While one may assume that the critical acclaim that has been garnered by Murray is only recent, the reality is that art critics appear to appreciate the tenacity and stability of Murray's work as it has developed over the last several decades. According to Horsley (2005) "Despite her evolving artistic path, Murray's work consistently demonstrates fine painterliness, strong palettes and a slightly unfinished quality that make her work distinctive and interesting. Indeed, one is mightly impressed by her superb compositional qualities and choice of palettes" (Elizabeth Murray). As such, it is clear that Murray's work has been well received by the art community, even despite the bold and unique perspective that Murray chooses to employ in her work. Even though it is evident that Murray's style has changed over time, there are elements of her work that remain a consistent part of each piece that she creates.

When the opinions of Murray's work are considered in total, it is evident that there is a notable appreciation for what Murray has been able to accomplish though her artistry. Not only has Murray been able to revitalize an art form that was considered to be dead, she has also been able to create works that will transcend her career. Murray's works appear to have a notable life about them that makes it difficult for the viewer to ignore the presence of the work. While it is evident that some critics find Murray's artwork dark and disturbing, it is clear that each critic has the utmost respect for what Murray has been able to accomplish. Based on what the critics have noted it seems reasonable to argue that Murray will remain one of the art world's most beloved painters.

Richard Tuttle

Richard Tuttle has also garnered considerable accolades from art critics. Although the opinions that have been offered about Tuttle's work appear to be much more piercing and jagged than those offered for Murray's work, overall it appears as if the critics have also come to appreciate Tuttle's unique style and composition. For instance, Janku (2005) in her examination of the retrospective of Tuttle's work displayed by the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art makes the following observations: "Tuttle's use of unorthodox materials and his prescient insistence on drawing as a medium per se-and his redefinition of it-are clearly visible as a primary influence on the current craze for found-material sculpture and works on paper" (p. 8). This author goes on to argue that the retrospective at the Museum "introduces the general public to an artist's artist whose maverick work has long been a litmus test for serious collecting" (p. 8). From this description, it is evident that Tuttle's work has promulgated more controversy and intensive investigation than the work created by Murray.

In spite of the fact that Tuttle's work appears to have garnered heavier criticism than that of Murray, it is evident that Tuttle's work has been well received overall. Janku in her further examination of the artist's work observes that despite a maverick style, there are notable elements of Tuttle's work that transcend the artist's overall development in the past four decades. As noted by this author:

Spanning some 40 years and weathering many '-isms,' Tuttle has held steadfast to a specific intellectual axis around which he has experimented visually. The chronological layout here illuminates how works crated decades apart share, both formally (materials, line scale) and philosophically (language, dimension, boundaries, reality), central poetic and dynamic concern: the links and limits of written and spoken language (p. 10).

Thus, despite the specific label that has been placed on Tuttle's work, Janku argues that Tuttle's work has been able to transcend the boundaries created by written and spoken language. This is perhaps one of the highest compliments that a critic could give to an artist.

Janku's assessment of Tuttle's work does not just end with a broad overview of the transcendental nature of this artwork. Rather, Janku provides specific criticisms of Tuttle's work and the methods used by the artist to create his vision. For instance, Janku comments on the specific methods that Tuttle has used to display his work: "In displacing certain works right into the floor and nailing others directly and visibly into the gallery wall, Tuttle inflects notions of originality and ownership while begging the question of where the work ends that the real world begins" (p. 11). What this effectively suggests that for Tuttle, the work is not just about the specific context of the art produced; it is about the manner in which art is synthesized into the context of the larger external world.

Despite the fact that Tuttle's work has been able to gain some degree of controversial acclaim researchers argue that this acclaim would not have been possible with the failure of Tuttle's work in 1975. According to Panero (2006), the Whitley Museum in New York hosted Tuttle's first, and failed, show. Panero argues that while the show was a complete and total loss for both Tuttle and the Museum, a phoenix arose from the ashes, even more determined to make living art a reality. Since this time, Tuttle's work has occupied "an in-between position in the Reinhart dichotomy" (p. 50). Tuttle has enjoyed this position, as he has been able to capitalize on some degree of controversy as a central means to expand his work. In the end, Panero seems to believe that the failure of Tuttle's first show more than 30 years ago is what has spurred his development into the artist that he has become today.

Clearly, Tuttle's work has caused considerable controversy over its true overall worth. While some critics appear to see Tuttle's work as unworthy of the "six figure prices" that it garners (Panero, 2005), others view Tuttle's work as completely innovative in both its form and its intent (Kalina, 2005). In his examination of Tuttle's work Kalina argues that this artist worked toward post-minimal dematerializing his artwork. To illustrate this point, Kalina examines the wirework produced by Tuttle in the 1970s. As noted by this author: "In 1972 Tuttle pushed things still further with the wire pieces, which are about as close to not being there as he imagined. Part object, part performance, the wire pieces are re-created...by the artist every time they are put up" (p. 115). As such, Tuttle's objective was clearly to extend the boundaries of the external world to encompass the presence of art.

Overall, it seems reasonable to argue that both the methods and art produced by Tuttle have been viewed by the critics as quite controversial. While it is evident that most critics do have some appreciation for the specific objective that Tuttle is attempting to accomplish-i.e. synthesizing both art and everyday life-some do not appear to have a strong affinity for the works produced by this artist. Interestingly however, the controversy that has been created as a result of the Tuttle's artwork is what appears to have served as the impetus for his rise to fame. As such, Tuttle does not seem to mind the controversy; rather it is what appears to drive him toward the achievement of his goal.

Oscar Bluemner

Oscar Bluemner's work has also been the subject of critical examination. Surprisingly however, Kalina (2006) argues that while Bluemner's work has been widely exhibited across the country for the several decades, this artist has not received the critical acclaim necessary to catapult his career into the history books. As such, Kalina contents that Bluemner is the "best underknown American artist of the first half of the 20th century" (p. 98). Kalina goes on to argue that it has not been until recently that Bluemner has begun to receive the attention and criticism that his work deserves.

Unlike the other artists whose work has been reviewed in this investigation, Oscar Bluemner represents a unique inquiry into the art world because of his personal struggle to have his work reviewed and examined by critics. According to Kalina, Bluemner is perhaps best known for his dichotomous personality, which prohibited him from becoming a notable author during his lifetime. As noted by Kalina:

Prickly, suspicious, hurtful to his friend and supporters, fickle and disloyal to his dealers, self-pitying but utterly convinced of his greatness, Bluemner managed to alienate those people...who could have ensure his rightful place in history. He passed his paranoid vision of the art world on to his two children, who steadfastly stood in the way of scholarship and exhibition opportunities, not permitting access to either his extensive archives or the work that they inherited (p. 98).

Thus, it was not until both of Bluemner's children died that the world was able to explore the works of an artist whose prime came in the early twentieth century.

While the personal drama that left Bluemner an obscure artist until after his death is indeed a compelling story, critics examining Bluemner's art have been quick to note that the artist's watercolors contain a story within themselves. According to Haskell and Schumann (2005) Bluemner's work was unique because it combined elements of both architecture and nature. As noted by these authors, "he equalized the relationship fusing ecstasy and order, nature and the manmade into a single, isolated, emotional, ecstatic moment. Convinced that all things consisted of polar oppositions, Bluemner transformed his watercolors into symbols of the enduring drama between what he called the 'ego' and the 'other'" (p. 124). Haskell and Schumann go on to argue that Bluemner's work attempted to capture the dichotomous nature of the world though the vivid colors that the artist used to create his works. "Wedding glowing colors to unified simple forms that overlapped in a shallow proscenium space, he created a portrait of nature's interlocking energies that visually testified to the elemental polarities of body and soul, life and death ecstasy and terror, male and female, yin and yang" (p. 124).

To accomplish his goal, Haskell and Schumann note that Bluemner used a single palate with two or three basic colors to generate considerable continuity in his work. Based on these elemental colors, Bluemner was able to create a psychic connection between the viewer and the work. Bluemner believed that each of the colors used in the work corresponded to music and its ability to shape and create mood. As such, color was an essential ingredient to Bluemner's work as it served as the principle means to evoke feeling and emotion in the viewer. Haskell and Schumann also report that the specific colors used by the artist in a particular work often corresponded to one shape or a group of similar shapes. It is this precision and depth which make Bluemner's work so inspiring to behold.

Force (2004) in her examination of Bluemner's work argues that while color was indeed a principle component of the artist's work, the subjects that he chose also had some bearing on the overall impact of Bluemner's work. "For subject matter, the artist chose to depict his local environment. He felt that the most intense color, mood, individuality and advanced ideas could be expressed only through the familiar, which he found in the landscapes, canals, harbors, villages, and factories of New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts" (Oscar Bluemner). Force contends that the specific subjects utilized by the artist in his work are important because the serve as a common ground upon which the individual viewer could appreciate the work. Thus, while the color used by Bluemner in his work is a critical issue for understanding this art, it is evident that the subject matter also served as a driving force for Bluemner to develop and express his vision.

In general, it appears as if the critics' examinations of Bluemner's work are those that are filled with both awe and surprise. Overall, critics exploring Bluemner's work have found that the manner in which the artist chose to incorporate color, architecture and nature is one that has not been widely replicated by other artists. Interestingly, none of the critics appear to offer a negative opinion of the work created by Bluemner. Rather, reviews of Bluemner's work take on a positive awe which seems to reflect both the tragedy of Bluemner's life as well as a genuine appreciation of the unique work that Bluemner has created.

Conclusion

Synthesizing all of the information that has been presented in this investigation, it seems reasonable to argue that the criticisms offered about an individual artist's work clearly have an impact on the manner in which one chooses to look at the artwork itself. In the case of Elizabeth Murray, the reader gets the sense that this artist's work is evocative in a dark and disturbing way. However, the liveliness that has been created in the work will serve as the impetus to keep Murray's works alive long after she has left this world. In the case of Richard Tuttle, the artist's search for unifying both the art and external world has clearly created considerable controversy over the viability of Tuttle's work. Surprisingly however, it appears as if this controversy is what has promulgated interest in the artist's work as well as a basis for Tuttle to keep expanding his vision. Finally with respect to Oscar Bluemner, the criticism that has been offered about this artist's work appears to reflect a deep appreciation for the personal struggles of the artist. As such, the reader cannot help but feel some degree of compassion or empathy when examining Bluemner's work.

In the end, a general review of the critic's response to these three authors clearly demonstrates how critics have the power to shape an influence not only the work of the artist-as in the case of Richard Tuttle-but also how the individual views the work once it is experienced in person. Although each of the critics appears to present a thorough and measured analysis of the works developed by the artist-as none of the critics indicate a personal disdain or like for the work being reviewed-the language and imagery that is used by these scholars in examining artwork clearly shapes how the individual will examine the work overall. In this context it becomes evident that art critics can have a powerful impact on the development of the public's response to an individual artist.

References

Force, D. (2004). Oscar Bluemner. Resource Library Magazine. Accessed May 15, 2006 at: http://www.tfaoi.com/aa/4aa/4aa440.htm.

Haskell, B., & Schumann, S.L. (2005). Oscar Bluemner Suns and Moons. Magazine Antiques, 168(5), 122-127.

Horsley, C.B. (2005). Elizabeth Murray. The City Review. Accessed May 15, 2006 at: http://www.thecityreview.com/emurray.html.

Janku, L. (2005). Tuttle's Armamentarium. ArtUS, 10, 8-11.

Kalina, R. (2006). Oscar Bluemner, in living color. Art in America, 94(1), 98-103.

Kalina, R. (2005). The subjective object. Art in America, 93(11), 112-159.

Panero, J. (2006). Gallery chronicle. New Criterion, 24(6), 50-52.

Plagens, P. (2005). Coloring outside the lines. Newsweek, 146(18), 57.

Westfall, S. (2006). Elizabeth Murray: Scary funny. Art in America, 94(1), 76-84.