New York Magazine - USA (2020-02-17)

february17–march1, 2020 | newyork 71

shouldn’t view Michelangelo’s David from
behind? Fried is right that Judd’s art is “the-
atrical.” But he is also one of the wrongest
critics of the era. The theatricality he disap-
proved of defines the art of the subsequent
40 years—from Lynda Benglis spilling paint
on the gallery floor to the cutout paper pan-
oramas of Kara Walker to the sculptural
environments of Robert Gober. (Gober’s
sinks conjure Judd’s boxes as well.)
How did Judd see his own work? Prob-
ably the premier sculptor of his time, Judd
said he didn’t make sculptures. They were
to be called “objects” or “specific objects.”
He said, “I never thought about sculpture.
Almost never.” Judd wanted to do away
with all those European traditions. “It suits
me fine if that’s all down the drain.” About
modernism, he said, “I’m not too sure what
that means.”
Judd also loathed the term minimal-
ism and never used it. You weren’t sup-
posed to either. That’s how stringent the
mid-1960s Kool-Aid was. So how did
people talk about this work at the time?
Among the most dizzying aspects of mini-
malism was the incredible cacophony of
contentious criticism and mandarin non-
sense it produced. Clement Greenberg
decried Judd’s work as “novelty art” and
“mannerism” and said Judd had “nothing
more to say.” Judd blasted Greenbergand
Fried’s critiques as “little-league fascism,”
the “incompetence of art criticism,”and
called such attacks despicable anddog-
matic. He said Fried’s formal analyses
“are shit.” And while he was amongthe
first to hail artists like Yayoi Kusamaand
Lee Bontecou, his reviews could be
scorching. “First, this is poor [Leonard]
Baskin. Second, Baskin is mediocreany-
way.” Fried lauded Anthony Caroasthe
paradigm of sculpture; Judd wrotethat
Caro was “a conventional, competent,
second-generation artist.”
For a time, Judd was viewed dismissively,
too. Anna C. Chave’s landmark 1990critique
of the machismo of the minimalistsbegins
with a bemused anecdote about herseeing
two young women kick a Judd boxanddo
their hair in its shiny surface whilea guard
simply looked on. Judd wrote a lotabout
how poorly his work was treated bymuse-
ums, where shipping labels and gaffertape
were applied directly to its fragile surfaces.
He loathed how museums so instantlyand
fully embraced and hijacked himandhis
ism and quickly turned minimalismintoa
white-male petting zoo, a symbolof good
taste and corporate status. In the1970s,I
remember thinking all these minimalist
artists were just the zombies, an ice ageof
art. But eventually, that ice age calved
PHOTOGRAPHS: COURTESY OF PARAMOUNT PICTURESwhole new continents. ■

video game star Sonic the Hedgehog finally hit the big screen on

February 14—but only after a planned November release for the movie

was delayed by the reaction of fans repulsed by a trailer featuring an

alarmingly too-realistically-a-hedgehog Sonic. So he was redesigned to

look less like hemightbite.Here’show he changed. brian feldman

What Have You Done

to Its Eyes?

BEFORE

Sonic from the

trailer

R

the

movie

TheEyes

Sonic’seyes

are nowmuch

larger andmore

expressive,

evokingtheuni-

eye of hisvideo-

game designs.

The greenirises

have alsobeen

lightenedtohew

closertothe

gamedesign.

TheFur

Old Sonic’sfur

lookscoarse

and resembles

a wildanimal’s.

New Sonic’sfur

is fluffier,like a

stuffedanimal.

Largerquillsjut

out ofhishead.

TheNose

The olddesign

has a pointyand

more realistic

animal-like

nose thattapers

gradually, while

the newversion

has a skinnier

buttonnose

that ismore

reminiscentof

classicSonic.

The Teeth

Sonic’s teeth

in the first

iteration are

disconcertingly

detailed, almost

as if a human

mouth had been

grafted onto this

strange creature.

His new teeth

are more

cartoonish.

The Chest

Sonic’s chest

is now beige,

rather than

white, bringing

him more in

line with the

Sonic that fans

are already

familiar with.