Viewing a wall of drawings by the ever astonishing Joseph Yoakum at the Frieze Art Fair this year seemed like a good enough reason to make my next things not on the Internet because I wrote them before the Internet existed posting a review of Yoakum’s work at the Carl Hammer Gallery in Chicago I wrote that was published in the New Art Examiner, March 1984 issue.
Joseph E. Yoakum
Mt. Mourner in Maritine Alps, 1968
Colored Pencil on Paper
Joseph Yoakum: His Influence on Contemporary Art and Artists
Carl Hammer Gallery, Chicago
I’ve always disliked the term naive artist. The work naive adds nothing to
the understanding of the artwork and, worse, may imply a condescending attitude toward it. In addition, it is a misnomer, for the naive artist knows everything needed to make art. As in the case of the archaic term primitive art, the qualifier refers to the artist’s relationship with our society, not the formal characteristics of the artwork.
Thus, I was excited to hear about the Joseph Yoakum show, subtitled His Influence on Contemporary Art and Artists, curated by Ken Hodorowski at Carl Hammer Gallery. Mr. Hodorowski attempted to erase the line drawn between naive art and fine art, with his case in point being the work of Yoakum. The first step in his approach was to hang Yoakum’s works together with the fine artworks of other artists. But, Mr. Hodorowski went one step further, by choosing artists who admit that their work has been influenced by Yoakum. In this case then, not only has the untrained artist been placed on an equal plane with the accepted fine artists, he has been raised above them, to the level of “spiritual master”.
Now, it’s one thing to talk influences, and quite another to prove them. This is especially true of the Chicago School where similarity of concept and approach is often visually obscured by an equally important dictum to develop a personal style. Since seeing is usually believing, we are presented with a paradoxical exhibition. For if we are to show the importance of an artist’s influence on other artists to be visually personal and unique, which is certainly Yoakum’s greatest lesson, and if the other artists respond by developing truly personal styles, then the visual link is lost, and we are, in effect, to take their word for it.
In an effort to provide that visual link, Mr. Hodorowski attempted to stack the deck by a very clever selection of specific works by the other artists in the show. Many artists, when another artist or artwork makes a profound impression on them will attempt to work it out through their own artwork. This can take many forms, from direct homage to the subtle borrowing of a composition or motif. By going back in time over the body of work by the other artists in the show, Mr. Hodorowski, in most cases, found a work by each that visually shows, or can be construed as showing, a definite connection to some aspect of Yoakum’s work.
Unfortunately, in the final analysis, Joseph Yoakum: His Influence on Contemporary Art and Artists is overpowered by the vastness of its undertaking. As much as I agree with the premise, I cannot honestly say that this exhibit would convince anyone that did not already agree with it. The limited confines of Carl Hammer Gallery could fit only one artwork by each of the artists – hardly enough to prove such a complex point. Furthermore, the multitude of influences involved with the other artists works could not be taken into account, not the least of which would have been the effect of the many other untrained artists, such as Martin Ramirez, with whom they are familiar. So, what we are left with is a very worthy attempt to question the validity of artistic labels and hierarchies, without the scope needed to push it to its conclusions.
