de Kooning at Gagosian

In the recent (September, 2004) issue of the venerable and glossy Artforum, there are at least three interesting, provocative pieces. First, Harry Cooper's piece on the current de Kooning shows in Manhattan really is about serious questions of authenticity and individuality. It is of course, also about the power of commerce. Cooper, a curator at the Fogg does not come down on the side of the now infamous paintings of (at least) 1987 and 1988, some (ten) of which are on view in the wildly pretentious and nevertheless sometimes wonderful Gagosian space. Three paintings illustrate the article, one from 1987, one from 1988 and one from 1961. The painting from 1961 is magnificent, powerful and appealing. The other two look like pale sketches, illuminations of the fading of power and skill (they are like children's drawings without innocence). I do believe that De Kooning did these paintings and not his assistants. The question becomes of course, why are they on exhibit now? I won't go so far to say that they are up for looks just for commercial reasons, but I would say that Gagosian's display comes close to that. On the other hand, it is amazingly and sadly provocative and weirdly reassuring to see that a great artist is not always great. As Cooper says: “They also demonstrate, perhaps inadvertently, that there is a big difference between de Kooning's greatest works and his latest ones. In the latter, the strokes seem painted; in the former, they seem to be painting. If it's a choice of illusions I'll take the one where the impulse of painting is so strong that the artist virtually disappears, ground into the present tense of pigment moving across canvas.” The article and the show raise some ethical murmurings with me, though I am not entirely sure what they are. Something like, well, a gallery can never be like a Museum or a book, it never makes judgments, everything is good whether it is or not, because they want to sell it. Nevertheless, it is good in that it raises these questions. Motivations, of course, are hard to discern---Gagosian, de Kooning, assistants, estate, etc. My own responses are somehow weirdly muddled.
[The other articles of some note were Michael Fried on Jeff Wall and Frances Richard on one Michal Rovner. Well, also Glenn Ligon's piece. More later] I had promised myself this blog would not adopt a personal tone to things, but it appears to be unavoidable.