There is a sentence in Smith's notice semi-explaining the "detriment" Noland suffered by remaining "ardently loyal to his formalist principles." I don't remember it being in there but I could have missed it. She says it's because color field lost "market share and critical stature."
I think what she really meant to say is his work got bad, which she ascribes to inflexibility on his part. As for "loss of market share," I rather doubt that for the early work. Without researching it I'd say an early Noland target was still fetching decent prices before his death. And it's not like museums de-accessioned them en masse after color field "lost."
|
- tom moody 1-07-2010 2:33 pm