|In case Mike followed the thread over here: Maybe both of you guys missed the review I wrote after the Richter show opened. (Or maybe not.) Alex, your position isn't far off Kuspit's, minus his tendentious moralizing. I talked about the Atlas; for me that's what's most interesting about Richter. I also like the abstractions, and my beef with the MOMA show is that there aren't more of them. I think the show emphasized the portraits to play to the crowd.
I did read your review, and a few others, which all blended in my head. I meant to go back to your archive, but the fact that I didn't may say something about the likelihood of really managing our info backlog in any coherent fashion (do try, though). I have often disagreed with Kuspit and his morals; I mean, this is a guy who once compared Robert Ryman to Leon Golub for cryin' out loud. And you can bet Ryman came out as moraly deficient, whereas to me he retains exactly the kind of engagement that Richter has dispensed with. I guess that'll happen when you compare a non-objective painter with a left-wing polemical illustrator. But that was twenty years ago; by now Kuspit at least represents criticism with a broader foundation than the Sunday Times, even if he sometimes reads like a more intelligent version of Hilton Kramer. There's reactionary, and then there's reactionary.