Rethinking American Art

Rethinking American Art: Collectors, Critics, and the Changing Canon is about the real history of art. Most books on art history are written from the point of view of the author. The author looks back at the past and looks at the art that he or she likes best, and writes that, as the history of art. But it’s not. My point of view is that we have to look into each period and see what art was appreciated at that time. What was the taste of that culture? That's the real art history.

Whether I will succeed in changing anyone’s minds, I don’t know. But my very ambitious aim is to change the way people actually think about art history. Most people write art history by reading what’s been written already and then putting it in their own words. So there’s very little originality. I approached the whole history of American art by examining each period—what the collectors, museums, and leading critics of that day were doing, what they were saying, what artists they most admired. It’s a different way of approaching its real history as opposed to a kind of art criticism.

The second part of the book is about a group of art collectors and how they approach art. They’re not the most famous or best-known collectors, although I include the Clark brothers. One of the Clarks founded the Clark Art Institute at Williamstown. One of them is Maxim Karolek, who was Boston’s most famous collector. But many others are little known. Yet they’re incredibly interesting and varied people. I tried to explore who the collector really was, because in our field, the curator or museum director spends their life flattering the collector. No one ever wants to hurt the collector’s feelings—even if they’re criminals. Our job is to glorify them, to put their name on the wall.

Whereas I tried to really look into who these people were, what they did well, what they did badly, and how each one reacted to the canon of the day—the popular art of the day. Did they think originally? Did they see art originally? Or did they just follow the course of what was popular?

Very few people—art historians, collectors, or dealers—really look at art. They mostly look at what’s popular, what other people are liking, and they try to go along with that.

None really understands art. 

All these books that we write are only going around the edge. There are people in our society who have the gift of having things come in through their head or their heart, and out through their hands—they make something that moves you. We don’t understand that process, or who appreciates it, or who can see it. It’s written about constantly—thousands of posters, books, exhibitions—but no one really understands it.

And it has almost nothing to do with money. What you mainly hear about are the big sales—the auction houses, the dealers—but the quality of the art and the amount of money are generally not related. What we’re talking about is very mysterious and not understood.

Also, curators, museum directors, and art historians all have a basic conflict of interest because you don’t want to criticize dealers, collectors, or academics—you might need something from them later: a favor, a painting, a loan, or something else. So everyone is very cautious in print. 

I’m 87 years old—if I’m not going to be honest now, when? So I was honest. I tried to be kind but honest about whether people have done good or bad work.