Most Popular
Recent Blog Posts
National Features >
And the Emmy Goes To. . .Week of December 12, 2001Published on December 12, 2001And the Emmy Goes To... However smug he may feel in his distaste for Mr. Trova's art, Silva should also be deeply embarrassed by his narrow grasp of art's recent history. While his suggestion is clear that Trova's place in the 1967 exhibit was less than deserving, he fails to see beyond the current fashion to recall the facts: by 1967, Ernest Trova had works in the Whitney, Guggenheim, Tate, and the Museum of Modern Arts, had been commissioned by I.M. Pei, collected by Philip Johnson, Larry Aldrich, and Albert List, and had been selected by Lawrence Alloway, director of the Guggenheim, along with Jackson Pollock, Joseph Cornell, David Smith, Roy Lichenstein, Larry Rivers and Isamu Noguchi to represent the United States at the Venice Biennale before the american entry was scrapped over a financial dispute. The New York Times reported that Trova's work was considered the most "avant-garde" of the group. One need only take a brief look through Pulitzer's 1967 exhibition catalog to recognize that along with Segal and Oldenburg, Ernest Trova was among the most widely acknowledged and credible of the selections. It is also worth noting that "7 for 67" very nearly mirrored a 1966 show at Minneapolis's Walker Art Center "8 Sculptors: The Ambiguous Image" which featured six of the seven artists in the later St. Louis exhibit, Trova included. Perhaps because of the accessibility of his art at Laumeier Sculpture Park and in other public collections around town, St. Louis has long taken Trova for granted, failing to recognize the impact his work had internationally in the 1960s and since. Silva would do well to conduct a bit of research before taking it upon himself to revise the history of modern art and understand that simply because an artist's residency is local does not mandate that his talent is local as well. ... Richard Serra:Richard Serra's "Twain" was the first piece of an unfinished puzzle that our City Money Fathers called the Gateway Mall. As chronicled in the Riverfront Times, [the mall] was grandly conceived as a panoramic vista that would lovingly lure the public into inspired public gatherings. There were to be fountains, benches, much greenery, and "Twain" was intended to be surrounded by all this, with children drawn into its center as their parents sat nearby soaking up the sun. In this intended scenario, "Twain" could possibly have been perceived as less ominous and more "Our Own Oddity." Instead, the Gateway Mall ball was dropped mere yards after the "Twain" kickoff. We now have an utterly useless stretch of land [largely] ignored by downtown workers. There is no sculpture known to man that could enliven those abandoned acres of Civic Progress. It's irritating to have both the artist and Emily Pulitzer continually slammed for contributing to what they -- like everyone else -- believed was a worthy community work-in-progress. We were all led down a primrose path that ends with the Serra sculpture as a scapegoat. If you look at in the context of reality, "Twain" is not blame. It's simply suffering from a bum deal. Where Credit Is Due In April, after the article on Schmid, I wrote an article about Geiseler and his code violations. I've been amused by the flurry of November news stories and mayoral action on both Schmid and Geiseler, because few people paid any attention last spring. Such is the world of community newspapers. Evidently the tree falling in the forest doesn't make a sound unless noted by a major media outlet. Gogarty Reappraised
write your comment
|