Page 4 - Conversation: Rosenberg + Kaufman .... / May

JW: Well, let me follow up with that notion a bit more because the 80s just reeked with careerism. A lot of people didn�t seem to care about their art at all; everything was about career.  So what it sounds like you�re saying is that there is that same intense interest in a career but that they also really care about their art.  I remember going to openings in the 80s where everyone seemed to ignore the art, which as often as not wasn�t that interesting, and instead were talking about real estate.

FK: Well I think you still find that to be true about the real estate (laughs).

SR: Let me say something about that.  I think when the CAL-Arts syndrome of careerism first came onto the scene it was really quite shocking.

JW: CAL Arts?

SR: Yes the people that spawned that whole group; Fischl and his cohorts�

JW: Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.

SR: �and that�s when the whole sense of careerism really took off. I mean prior to that there were people, and probably still are, waiting for Leo Castelli to discover them - and he�s been dead for several years.

JW: (Laughs) I guess they need to make an important discovery of their own!

SR: So I think because of that split, between whether or not you were a �pure� artist and not worried about making a living, suddenly you came upon the 80s where people said, �Screw that, we�re going to make a buck�.  I think it found a different kind of level.

JW: That�s interesting because with Milton Resnick�s recent death and having read and reviewed a book on his life (Out of the Picture  Milton Resnick and The New York School) he was so much about artistic purity, devotion and struggle. Then you contrast that with the people you just mentioned, Fischl, Schnabel, etc., you�re right; there is this huge divide between the two viewpoints. So I agree with what you�re saying that many artists today seem to strive for the middle ground of taking their art and careers as equally serious.

Previous Page

Let�s conclude with this: How do you see the future of abstract art?

SR: I don�t think it�s going away, I really don�t. I think the sense of what abstraction means might change somewhat but I still think people are going to be engaged in creating art which basically reflects some sense of inner self and inner mission. I think that it will always continue as long as people can make marks on whatever they can make marks on.

JW: I also think what you said earlier is interesting too in that we�ve repeatedly witnessed abstract art�s death several times.

SR: Yeah well it keeps coming back.

FK: And that was a �public� death not a private one.

JW: Yes that�s true.

SR: But I think the nature of abstraction speaks to a serious subtext of human concerns and that is not going to be replaced by anything that is terribly graphic. You know there�s an interesting point to make here.  As you know we show David Stern�s work which is essentially figurative. People that are unfamiliar with his work often don�t see the figure because he�s using the language of abstract painting.  What he�s managed to do is reverse the whole process in a very intelligent way. So that is a great example of how the inventive process of art will always continue and I think abstract art will be with us as long as people make art.

JW: Fran, what is your take on the future of abstract art?

FK: Well I think what Stephen said is true and what I find interesting is that there are any number of abstract painters that flirt with representational work and they often go back and forth.

SR: Resnick was one who did.

FK: That�s right, Resnick certainly did and there are lots of people that have done that. It is those cycles and what they are about that interests them as to painting. Somebody once asked Dennis Pinette why he painted

Next Page