I’m not quite sure what to make of the Morton Bartlett show at the Julie Saul Gallery, recently previewed by Roberta Smith in The New York Times. Smith completely skirted the overtly sexualized nature of these works, and instead concentrated on the (least controversial) complicated creation and acquisition process, failing to accurately describe the content of the show with its anatomically correct child-like dolls photographed in what appear to be highly suggestive seemingly Balthus-inspired poses, cleverly omitted from the gallery website. Wouldn’t want to get too controversial after all.
The work itself was never intended for public consumption, and for good reason. There’s an unsettling pedo angle to this stuff that gets the same “grown man had a horrible childhood and never quite grew up” critical explanation heard before when describing the works of Henry Darger.
That said, like Darger, the work is excellent, and fascinating in its ability to disturb by exploring a taboo subject within the confines of fantasy. It’s hardly pornographic, but all the same seems like it was by all accounts a safe outlet for desires limited to indulgence via film and sculpture.
The work itself was never intended for public consumption, and for good reason. There’s an unsettling pedo angle to this stuff that gets the same “grown man had a horrible childhood and never quite grew up” critical explanation heard before when describing the works of Henry Darger.
That said, like Darger, the work is excellent, and fascinating in its ability to disturb by exploring a taboo subject within the confines of fantasy. It’s hardly pornographic, but all the same seems like it was by all accounts a safe outlet for desires limited to indulgence via film and sculpture.
Labels: art
posted by Stewart A. Williams at
9:03 PM
0 Comments
