In one paragraph Searle talks about how Diebenkorn "owes so much" to Matisse, immediately followed by a paragraph containing an example in the contemporary galleries of a piece which intrudes on the appreciation of the pieces around it. The art-blogger meanwhile talks about a piece in the contemporary galleries intruding on the appreciation of other works, immediately followed by a paragraph on how much Diebenkorn "owed" to Matisse. Probably coincidental - and a sign that their has been both way too much redundant MOMA coverage and that I've spent way too much time reading it.
Also worth noting is Searle's new review of the great Marlene Dumas. Somebody notify Richard Polsky!
from Adrian Searle's MOMA article:
"a lovely Richard Diebenkorn Ocean Park painting, which owes so much to the internal architecture of Matisse's Piano Lesson."
"In a catch-all display of Minimal and postminimal art, a Dan Flavin fluorescent striplight casts its pinkish glow on all around it. The infinitessimaly differenciated tones of an Ad Reinhardt black painting are rendered utterly invisible, a Bridget Riley twangs in the glow, and one of Robert Ryman's white paintings blushes pink in Flavin's reflected aura. Somehow, everything looks like an example or an illustration rather than a thing in itself."