How to Look at Ad Reinhardt’s Cartoons

1. In his comments on Ad Reinhardt at David Zwirner Gallery, the organizer of the exhibition — Robert Storr — says that the artist’s cartoons were “seen merely as a sideline.” As far as the general public is concerned, this is probably the case. Museum and gallery exhibitions and most art critics have reinforced this message — a line initially
   promulgated by Reinhardt himself during the latter part of his career and rigorously
   enforced by subsequent actions of the Estate of Ad Reinhardt. Yet historians of
   art and others who have kept up with scholarship on Reinhardt will know that
   this is far from an adequate picture of the artist. The question of the
   relationship of Reinhardt’s various practices to each other as well as to a
   more expansive concept of artistic practice was raised and examined by
   historians of art as early as the 1980s.

   The desire to understand the full measure of Reinhardt’s versatility and the satisfaction that such knowledge brings is a sentiment that Mr. Storr and I share. He is in a very good position to know that the public — and others involved with visual art — would have had the opportunity to assess all of Reinhardt’s practices sooner but for repeated
   decisions by the Estate to refuse permission to scholars who had wished to
   reproduce these images and to discuss them in relation to Reinhardt’s overall
   practice as an artist. I should know, as I am one of those who had been denied
   permission not once, but twice, to reproduce Reinhardt’s work — paintings,
   graphic design, cartoons, etc. — in connection with peer-reviewed research
   arguing for a holistic view of the artist’s practice. Despite the prohibition,
   my scholarship on Reinhardt was published and widely disseminated across
   academia and in the art press.

   Clearly, it is the prerogative of the Estate of Ad Reinhardt to make whatever decision they wish with regard to the legacy of the artist. Sometimes — not often — there is a change of heart and artist’s estate may loosen their grip and allow for the public dissemination of
   information that had hitherto remained off limits. The consequence of such openness and transparency is that the conversation about the meaning and significance of the artist’s lifework is renewed and refreshed. I am gratified that a more complete range of Reinhardt’s practices has finally been allowed to be made public with the blessings of the Estate of Ad Reinhardt.

   However, in the flurry of excitement and wonder over works by Reinhardt that have not been visible for so long, we should not forget that in academic circles it is considered to be bad form to build upon the research of others without giving credit where credit is due. It is up to the community of historians and critics of art to decide if it is disingenuous of Mr. Storr — who is considered to be a serious and ethical curator — to give the
   impression that the exhibition concept that he has had the privilege of presenting to the public is entirely without precedent. Granted, public events are not the best setting for footnotes, and forthcoming scholarship by Mr. Storr on Reinhardt may reveal another approach. But as far as this episode is concerned, Mr. Storr’s curatorial concept appears ex nihilo.

Comments are closed.