Comments on: Peter Hide on Caro at Gagosian http://abstractcritical.com/article/peter-hide-on-caro-at-gagosian/ Abstract Critical is a not-for profit company aiming to establish a new critical context for all generations of artists involved with ambitious abstract art. Sun, 09 Nov 2014 17:23:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.2 By: Robin Greenwood http://abstractcritical.com/article/peter-hide-on-caro-at-gagosian/#comment-197513 Fri, 19 Jul 2013 06:41:57 +0000 http://abstractcritical.com/?post_type=article&p=7214#comment-197513 What a strange mixture, Peter! Old Skool formalism meets vague metaphorical allusion. They look a bit like this and a bit like that. Three tons of steel to make something that looks a bit like clouds – are we meant to admire the irony?

We’ve had four essays on the man now. This one apart, the other three seem broadly to agree that Caro is not much of a sculptor in the “hands on” sense, though Tim and David suggest he’s still important as an artist – an auteur even. Personally, I think the discipline is bigger than the man, and whilst his sixties work is hugely innovative – let’s give credit where it’s due – he also may be credited with some damage to sculpture. An innovator, yes. A master? Well, the jury is out on that one; but it would seem to me that beyond the innovation of the sixties, there has been a contraction of the discipline. Collaging found objects, unchecked pictorialism, and a tendency toward literal installation are all weakening trends that remain unaddressed.

Interesting that both Pete and Tim have highlighted “Wandering”, which seems to me to be a real throw-back. Actually, what it reminds me most of is early Tim Scott (“Pool 2”? http://www.poussin-gallery.com/site.php?artist=9&group=19 ). Nothing wrong with that, except that was then and this is now. Can we move on?

I had a look at “Early One Morning” the other day at Tate, badly curated (by Penelope Curtis again? Remember the RA? Damn, there goes the Tate retrospective as well as the knighthood). Here’s a couple of tips for future curators of this sculpture – don’t line it up with the architecture, and don’t play it off against paintings; it has enough of the painting in it already. As I say, I had a look at it recently, and, much as I love the old thing, there is no doubt that from today’s more critical perspective, it has lots of views where, as a sculpture, it goes AWOL (just like the new ones). To progress, we need to better that weakness, not keep on repeating it.

]]>