Sirs:
We were delighted to find Peter Plagens’ article on the Marsden Hartley exhibition in the May issue . . . On page 40, however, the caption states that the exhibition was shown at UCLA from November 20 to December 20, 1968. It was not shown there, but at USC.
Edward S. Peck, Director
University Galleries
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, California
———
Sirs:
In her article on Robert Motherwell (May), Rosalind Krauss makes what I believe to be a most revealing “slip.” She says, “Within the Open series’ many of the pictures operate with more complicated versions of the U device . . .” What I am calling attention to is her choice of the word “device” as an appropriate description of Motherwell’s subject. Unfortunately, “device” is an increasingly useful and accurate description of what is happening in art presently. From what I have observed, 99% of all the work being done today makes manifest the servitude of both the artists and their creations to the “device,” “idea,” “gimmick,” or whatever you choose to call it . . . Artists and their work are not the only victims of the “device.” Art journals which take seriously such “device”-ridden work become manipulable devices themselves. Let us hope that Mrs. Krauss and Artforum will . . . reassert meaningful standards of criticism and dialogue instead of just trying to make history overnight!
Matthew Eisner
New York City
———
Sirs:
Re: Emily Wasserman’s “Three Younger Artists” (Summer, 1969) . . . We have been exhibiting paintings by David Diao continuously throughout this past year. We have also exhibited the Sheet Rock painting and homosote box, both of which can be explored fruitfully in terms of his paintings. The latter is presently in the “Highlights” exhibition at the Aldrich Museum.
Paula Cooper
New York City
———
Sirs:
If you are going to carry reviews of eight year old films (Two Rode Together, May) then surely your reviewer should have found time to read the comments the director has since made on the film in question. In Peter Bogdanovitch’s “John Ford” (Studio Vista, 1967) Ford is recorded as saying about Two Rode Together:
I didn’t like the story, but I did it as a favor to Harry Cohn, who was stuck with the project and said, “Will you do this for me?” I said, “Good God, this is a lousy script,” He said, “I know it, but we’re pledged for it —we’re all set—we’ve got Widmark and Stewart signed up.” I said, “O.K., I’ll do, the damn thing.” And I didn’t enjoy it. I just tried to make Stewart’s character as humorous as possible.
Manny Farber’s comments are all valid, but aren’t some of them caused by (a) lack of knowledge of the “sordid commercial factors” involved, as described above, and (b) the dashing of expectations when a film directed by a “big” name, and shown under the aegis of an august “art” institution like the Museum of Modern Art proves to be a mere potboiler? Surely it is not the director or the actors who are to be blamed, but those who expect such a showing to always miraculously convert known dross into unexpected gold—sometimes it works, more frequently it does not.
David Cheshire
Librarian, Hornsey
College of Art
London, England
———
Sirs:
I am preparing a catalogue raisonné of paintings by Alfred H. Maurer. I would be grateful for any information from your readers on the whereabouts of Maurer paintings, letters, or other material of interest.
Sheldon Reich, Head
Department of Art History
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, Ohio 45221
