Explicit

Episode 4: The Genius Problem

Published Oct 7, 2022, 9:30 AM

Carl stands trial for the murder of Ana Mendieta. His defense ruthlessly attacks Ana, using her artwork against her, and rests heavily on his prestige in the art world. Helen reveals her personal connection to Carl Andre and his work, and how it changed her career.

To hear the rest of Season 1 ad-free, sign up for Pushkin+ on the Death of an Artist show page in Apple Podcasts, or at pushkin.fm/plus. If you’d like to keep up with the most recent news from this and other Pushkin podcasts be sure to subscribe to our email list.

Pushkin. This show contains adult language and occasional descriptions of violence. Please keep that in mind when choosing when and where to listen. Previously on Death of an Artist, she's making photocopies and she wanted to use that for her divorce on grounds of infidelity. I find that my roots are Cuban. The branches might be American, but the trunk of the tree is Cuban or the roots. You know, she was not a santea. She was not dressed in white. There is a very big difference between a practitioner of santea and somebody who studies or uses it as a way of working with culture. I want to take you back to nineteen eighties Manhattan. In those days, you could actually smoke in the hallways of the courtroom, and many a jury weight took place in the hallways with people smoking cigarettes and playing cards and things like that. It was gritty. That's Ron Koubi, a long time New York City defense lawyer. He's going to be our tour guide through the legal dynamics of Carl's trial. The city had suffered a recession. Crime was rampim. There had been a spate of high profile horrors. I remember taking the subway to school and reading the ominous headlines in the post or the daily news. Fear was in the air, and much of it played on white people's deep seated racism that equated crime with people of color. The judges were almost exclusively white, the defendants were almost exclusively people of color. And the almost there is important because, oh, from nineteen eighty five through eighty eight eighty nine, there was a plethora of defendants in cases that I'll just call white boys behaving badly. There was the Robert Chambers case. That's the so called preppy murder case. Chambers claimed his friend Jennifer Levin accidentally died during rough sex. This trial was actually happening just down the hall from Carl Andre's trial and was getting all the media attention. Paul Castellano, who was rubbed out at the steakhouse in plain View on the street again being a crime family mafio so killed in a hit ordered by John Gotti. There was Bernard gets, the white man who shot four young African American teenagers on the subway in a highly dubious act of vigilante justice, and of course less well known but still significant in the art world, there was Carl Andre This was the backdrop of Carl's trial, a swirl of high profile cases of white men accused of murder. The new Assistant DA on the case was Elizabeth Letterer, and by nineteen eighty eight she was ready to go to trial. Several of Anna's friends rallied and joined Anna's family in the courthouse to witness the proceedings. One of the people who attended almost every day was b Ruby Rich. She remembers a stark scene. There's an aisle down the middle, and one side is reserved for the defendants friends and family, and the other sides reserved for the victim's friends and family. It's exactly a bad wedding where one side of the family disapproves of the marriage, as I think they did in fact disapprove of the marriage. On his side was packed with friends and family, while Carl's side remained empty. He had apparently asked his friends and supporters not to come to the courthouse. All of Carl's friends were telling people in the art world not to go. Carl doesn't want you there, and under the guise of sensitivity, you know you don't want to see Carl like this was kind of the implication of it. Under that guise, nobody knew what was going on. They prevented people from actually hearing the testimony, from actually hearing the evidence, from actually finding out what had gone on. This would come to feel symbolic of the whole affair. For honest people, it was a profoundly public matter that demanded visibility, and for Carl's people, it was a situation to be kept private. You can publicize his works, but you can't talk about his private life with That's Carl's defense lawyer Jack Hoffinger, Carl Andre is an extremely private person. I mean he doesn't want a photograph taken. Carl Andre has never talked publicly, and I doubt that he's talked really privately about this case to anybody. This image of Karl alone in the courtroom, no friends, no family, is both tragic and chilling. We can see a man bereft, a man on the brink of losing everything, or we can see a man set apart from others because of his intellect, his power to transform the history of art, his genius. I'm your host. Helen Wallsworth from Pushkin Industries, Something Else and Sony Music entertainment. This is Death of an Artist, Episode four. The Genius Problem. Here's the thing, and this is probably going to feel familiar. When a super talented man, someone who's been called a genius, gets accused of harming someone they're fans meaning us, Well, it turns out we don't really want to believe it, at least not at first and not for a long time. Roman Polanski, Michael Jackson, Bill Cosby, Woody Allen. So when Carl was accused of honest murder, there was a sense of shock on two levels. City Confidential, a cheesy true crime TV show, described the art world's reaction. There was shock on the Sheik Streets of Solo to the shock was that Carl had murdered on it and you others. It was a shock that anyone could possibly accused the Great Carl Andre of something so heinous. But when Carl finally stood trial, his defense team recognized that the folks in the art world who thought he was a genius were not going to be the ones deciding his fate. A typical jury in Manhattan in the late nineteen eighties would have largely been civil servants and retired veterans. They probably weren't going to be impressed by an avant garde art star. This is a guy who throws pieces of metal on a floor, throws some bricks on top. You know, he's sort of the classic definition of art about which people say, I don't know much about art, but I know shit when I see it. Okay, Carl wasn't throwing pieces of metal or bricks on the floor. But it's true that Carl made sculptures that challenge the very idea of art, so I can forgive the folks who couldn't see it as art. And it's also true that Carl came to trial wearing his usual overalls and carrying a tote bag filled with newspapers and books. He arrived early every day, read the paper, and remained silent. But even though he was wearing working class overalls, he lived in a luxury high rise apartment, traveled to Europe for art exhibitions, and sold his work for handsome prices. All of this contradiction probably wasn't going to endear him to a jury. Carl Andre is a remarkably and was a remarkably unsympathetic character. First of all, there's his look. He's a big hulking guy. He's affecting a working class attitude, but he's not. The question the lawyers and Carl were faced with was how in the world do you explain his art and his lifestyle to the everyday folks who make up the jury pool in Manhattan. But the judge, Alvin Schlessinger, was not an everyday person. Schlessinger fancied himself as a more sophisticated person, somebody who appreciated arts and culture and all of those kinds of things, you know, theater and opera and art, and so he would naturally be a more sympathetic audience to Andre and his work than your average jury of twelve plus alternates. Journalist Robert Katz was there when Carl's defense team hit upon their fundamental strategy. He described the moment in a radio interview after the trial. Jack Hoffinger stood up and said, my client wishes to waive a jury. And everybody looked around, and nobody really understood what he meant, because no one could remember the last time anybody had ever waived a jury and murder trial. It's a very very rare event. That was truly an amazing surprise in a decision that would have lasting implications. He opted for a bench trial, which means the judge and only the judge, decides the verdict. On the one hand, it makes sense to me that Karl foregoes a jury trial. I can totally see how he would have seemed very weird to people. And it also makes sense to me that he didn't choose a jury trial, because, let's face it, a genius is going to have a hard time finding a jury of their peers. Honest friends viewed the decision to waive a jury as cynical. The art world's very special, very special. This is when people used to say, don't go above fourteenth Street because all the Vulgarians are there. They don't understand truth, they don't understand beauty, they don't understand meaning nobody else could understand the full genius of a figure like Carl andre Or. I think, frankly, nobody us could understand that Anna's life didn't matter. For some people, Carl's work was too important to be tethered to the actions of a flawed man. And for other people, whatever happened that night was private. And because whatever happened that night was private, it had no place in discussions of his work. This kind of thinking is in the very dna of how art history is taught. So imagine a pact room in a library. That's the art historian Julia Brian Wilson. She's taking us back to the late nineteen nineties when she was a young grad student at UC Berkeley, the heart of leftist intellectual life and renowned for its stars studded art history department. A visiting scholar was in town to give a lecture on Carl Andre, and the room was packed. One of the folks in the room was Julia, a punk rock kid from Houston, a far cry from the girls with pearls back east who typically populated art history departments. I think I might have still been wearing like this lab coat that I sometimes wore as a dress that I had stolen because I was quite a little thief in my riot girl days, you know, not the usual uniform of the art history graduate student. The speaker talked in formal terms about Carl Andre, using the buzzword of the nineties, horizontality. That's horizontality as opposed to verticality. Instead of thinking about uplifting monuments or upward progress, folks were interested in the horizontal as a metaphor for non hierarchical thinking, think crabgrass versus a tree, sib and cousins versus parent and child. But Julia was thinking about another version of horizontality, mouth agape at the fact that forty five to fifty minutes had gone by talking about this, that the other, about Carl Andre and again that this key term of horizontality, where in my mind, I'm thinking Anna Mendietta, you know, died in the most brutal way. And the fact that there is no mention of this, I just can't believe it to intone horizontality with all of its implications of the ground and of gravity, and to leave out how Anna died. That felt like not just an art history problem, but a history history problem. Why was the story so incomplete? And I was just boiling with rage in my seat in the lecture room. People were asking questions that had to do with the formal terms that the speaker was laying out, and no one was engaging with what to me seemed like the bigger moral aches of like why are you giving airtime to this artist? So heart pounding, the young grad student stood up and asked her question, what about Anna Mendieta. Where does she fit into this discussion? She just dismissed it. Me just feeling like I cannot believe what this discipline permits and what it erases, and just my baptism, I would say, by fire into art history, which was really like, you are here to learn this cannon, and this cannon is pretty fixed. I was just constantly at sea, always just hating the discipline in a way while also trying to ingratiate myself to it. I mean, I still feel that way. I still very much feel that way. Julia had just walked into one of art history's brick walls, the wall that separates the artist and their life from the artwork they make. I want to go back to Peter Sheldall, the fabulous art critic for The New Yorker, the art who loved Carl Andre's work but disliked his personality. See if all the minimalists were assholes, and you're walking through the gauntlet to get to the strawberry shortcake at the back of Max's, you had made some kind of peace or understanding that you could like artwork made by people who you didn't like personally. It sounds like Oh yeah, I mean that just seemed to me a given a start. We don't give a car of Aggio grief for being a murderer, you know, which he absolutely was. The controversy about Ezra Pound after a Second World War, it was a kind of a watershed for me that, you know, he had been a traitor and a Semitic propagandist agi American during the war and then after where he was given a hugely christ ticket bowling in a war, and then he he copied an insanity plea and got, you know, put in a metal hospital for a while. And there was a big debate about it, and I said, no, you know, gave him the bowling an award and put him the fucking jail. So it's not that Peter Sheldall or the professor who gave the talk at you see, Berkeley necessarily thought Carl was innocent. It's that they thought it didn't matter when you were looking at his work. I never met her, but you know I knew of her, and she was not going to throw herself out a window. And you know he has scrat from our fantics face they were fighting. Did its squalidness ever make you not want to go and see his show. No no, I kept going for you to shows, so shell Doll, like so many in the art world, like me, for instance, kept going to his shows because whatever Carl Andre did or did not do in his personal life, his work was and would remain fill in the blank canonical great genius historical. The art world doesn't have the statistics that govern the world of sports, but it does have its own version of being a goat, and that's genius, and it is the art world's highest praise. The word typically refers to someone who did something no one had ever done before. So Picasso is a genius because he invented cubism. Warhole is a genius because he bridged the gap between art and popular culture. Carl Andrea is a genius because he solved the problem of sculpture's relationship to the floor. By the time of Anna's death, though, feminists were starting to scrutinize the whole idea of artistic genius, because while genius seems like a good thing, it was hard to overlook the fact that what the term seemed to describe was male genius, which really meant white male genie. Some of the loudest and funniest feminist voices in the art world are an anonymous group of women called the Gorilla Girls. That's gorilla spelled like rebel fighter, not the primate. The Gorilla Girls are all anonymous and use the names of famous dead women artists. We talked to the Gorilla Girl free to CALLO. We decided from the very beginning that we had to be anonymous because we really didn't want to bite the hand that we hoped would feed us. It would be very damaging to one's career to complain in public like that because the art world is, you know, is such a kind of self congratulatory place at that time. They didn't want to hear anything negative. The way they protect their identity out in public is by wearing gorilla masks this time spelled like the primate. The gorilla girls we spoke to would not tell us their real names or turn on their cameras during the interviews, and the secrecy works to this day. I still don't know who is and is not a gorilla girl. We wanted to confound stereotypes. Gorillas are not the vicious, violent animal or culture casts on them. They're vegetarian, peaceful animals that live in large groups of females and the hilarious masks. In a way, it's become our hallmark, and to be honest, I think it allows us to say things that we might not be able to say through our own identities. And the visuals of it is absolutely crazy picture. It a bunch of women in miniskirts and gorilla masks using humor to poke fun at the absurdities of the white, male dominated art world. Their primary form of attack were posters that combine jokes with found images. Basically, they memes, and instead of posting them on Instagram, they put them up all around New York City. In nineteen eighty five, we put up a poster saying, you know, these galleries show fewer than ten percent women artists, are none at all? Was it really just a mistake or some kind of terrible oversight that there were almost no women geniuses in art history books and so few women represented in galleries and museums. Part of the genius myth is that the genius is a solitary figure. He is a lone wolf. He is not hemmed in by conventional thinking or the rules and rags of everyday life. A genius does not do the dishes, or shop for dinner, or raise children. It's a hard category for women to be a part of. One of the Guerrilla girls most famous posters is called The Advantages of being a Woman Artist. It has a list of perks that include working without the pressure of success, knowing that your career might pick up after your eighty and not having to undergo the embarrassment of being called a genius. The other thing about genius is it always trump's bad behavior. There was this crazy thing called artistic license, which meant that artists get excused because whatever it is that they produce is so much more important than whatever damage they could do to people in their lives. Even though Anna died in nineteen eighty five, it would be a decade before the Guerrilla Girls would tackle the problem of Carl Andrea and Anna Mendieta head on. They weren't alone. Critics like Peter Sheldall and curators like me continued to separate bad male behavior from good male art. Even Julia Brian Wilson, who was so angry at that Berkeley lecture about Carl Andre, found herself a few years later writing a chapter of her dissertation about Carl's role in the Artworkers Coalition and only mentioning an A. Mendietta's death in a footnote. I had to convince myself and be convinced to grapple with his work in the book, because I felt for myself, as a young feminist, that there was something troubling to me about talking about his work divorced from the fact of the marriage and Mendietta's death. And I have a footnote. I mean, and you know, I do acknowledge it that it was a fact. Julia had to write to Carl to get his permission to access some research materials, and that correspondence resulted in an invitation to his apartment. When she recounted the story, it was clear how uncomfortable it made her. I went to his apartment and met him. I was really shocked when he sent me his address and I saw that it was the same building where he had lived with on A Mendietta. And to me, I thought, gosh, you know, sort of, no matter what happened with that death, I would not want to stay in the same place where my partner had died. She was in a deeply ambivalent place, somewhere between grateful and spooked. If you're working on a living artist, there is some feeling like it is part of the research process that you make contact with them. I felt like I was checking a box. Why was just spooked? I mean the word really is spooked. By being there in that space where I knew that on A Mendietta had died. She tried not to seem too nosy, didn't look around the apartment much. Instead, she focused on the faces of Carl and his fourth wife, Melissa. They talked briefly, and then the three of them went to dinner at a seafood restaurant. Yeah, it was deeply weird. Then we marched down to this fish restaurant and there was really a prodigious amount of drinking, not mine. And just noticing that and knowing that the story of Carl Andrean on A Mendietta was very much also a story of alcohol, it must have been weird. It's hard for me to fathom even now that Carl's life is so unchanged, He's still in the same apartment, still going out to dinner, and still drinking too much. I don't want to seem judge. I used to drink very heavily back in the day. Every art world event has an open bar. It's almost like an occupational hazard. But I know I would have watched Carl's alcohol consumption like a hawk too, especially given the huge role Booze played in the story of Anna and Carl's relationship. It's just one more thing in our culture that we're not supposed to talk about. This culture of discretion of what can and cannot be said would get played out in the courtroom, especially since the strategy for Carl's defense was to keep anyone from saying much of anything. The trial began in Earnest on a January morning in nineteen eighty eight. In some ways, a trial is similar to a museum exhibition. Both are places where a story is being told, and the truth of that story matters. Experts get to decide how the story is told, lawyers, judges, curators, and the rules about what evidence or artwork can be used to tell those stories are not always straightforward, transparent, or fair. When you walk into a museum, you only see the artworks that were selected through a careful process to tell a particular story. There are always other works that are left out that would tell a different story. For instance, artworks made by women of color. They are rarely seen, no matter how wonderful they might be in a courtroom. Evidence is also carefully selected before the big show the trial, and even evidence that everyone agrees is factual can still get left out deemed inadmissible for a variety of reasons. When that happens, the judge or jury are not allowed to consider those facts when they formed their verdict. This was the case in Anna's trial. A lot of evidence got left out, which means the story wasn't complete. Natalia Delgado was the first witness called by the prosecution. She had flown to New York from her home in Chicago, bringing along her six week old child, a little girl she'd named after Anna, and she was ready to testify about the last phone call with Anna just hours before her death, when Anna had told her about her plan to expose Karl as a cheater and file for divorce. But I couldn't talk about any of that. Any conversation about Anna's plans for divorce was deemed hearsay and ruled inadmissible. I couldn't say that I had recommended to her that night that she confronted Carl and tell him that she'd collected evidence of his infidelity, that she'd been photocopying records that would establish his being with these other women. I could not say that she feared his anger, that she said he would blow up when she said this to him. I couldn't establish that she wanted to get a divorce on the grounds of infidelity, and that's why she was collected this information as she feared his reaction. None of that. I could only say she was making plans for the future. So what was on Anna's mind the night of her death inadmissible. And remember how Natalia was surprised that Carl's lawyer was in the apartment after Carl had been taken to the police station. She was concerned about what would happen to the secret copies of phone and credit card bills that Anna had been collecting, documents she thought proved Karl was being unfaithful. Well, those documents went missing. Even though the apartment was a possible crime scene. Even though Karl was at the station for questioning, the cops let both Carl's lawyer and maybe one other person into the apartment. In an interview after the trial, Robert Katz explained what he thought happened to the documents that Anna considered evidence of Carl's infidelity. While Carl Andre was being questioned by the police before he was under arrest, somebody entered the apartment and removed what she called evidence. It turned out this would be one of several police errors that would dramatically affect the evidence considered a trial. But still there was other evidence that pointed to murder. If Anna had jumped out of the window of her own volition, or even if she had merely closed or opened the window, there would have been footprints on the window sill. Here's Robert Katz again. By the configuration of the room would be almost impossible for her to have committed suicide with asked somehow getting onto that ledge, the window sill came up Brahma's breast level, and yet they found no footprints on the window sill. But there was a problem with this evidence too, another police mistake. The police had forgotten to put taking a fingerprints in the search wire, and so the police record showing that there were no footprints on the window sill that was also deemed inadmissible. The most convincing pieces of evidence of murder had been to borrow a phrase curated out of the show. Ona's desire for a divorce, Anna's evidence of Carl's infidelity, and the proof that Anna had not stood on the window sill. These were all things the judge was not allowed to consider. And when the evidence that pointed to murder was discussed at trial, then the defense worked to sow the seeds of doubt. There was the doorman out on a coffee run who heard a woman yell no, no, no, just before Anna fl He was allowed to testify, but they discredit hit him by saying he had had some prior psychological issues, so he wasn't a good witness for purposes of hearing her screams and hearing the thud. It turned out he had been treated several years prior for auditory hallucinations. His testimony was admissible, but questionable. And what about those scratches, particularly the one on Carl's nose. The scratch was either proof that Anna and Carl had a physical altercation that night, or the scratch was just a coincidence. Everything came down to when Carl got the scratch. Carl said the terrace door had blown into his face about a week or so before and scratched him, So the question was, had anyone actually seen a scratch on Carl's nose before the night Anna died. The prosecutor had fewer witnesses in her corner than she had hoped for. Several people who had seen Carl in the days leading up to Anna's death initially said no, Carl had not had any scratches, but one by one they started doubting their own memories. The people who had dinner with him didn't want to testify as to whether or not yet those deep scratches on his face and arms. She's referring to a couple who had dinner with Carl and Anna a few days prior to Anna's death. They told the detective they had not noticed any scratches on Karl's face, but later said they couldn't remember. Another witness showed up to take the stand, but then suddenly also couldn't remember. Prosecutor Elizabeth Letterer was watching her witnesses fall away one by one. Nancy Spirow, a witness who was waiting for her turn to testify, remembered the prosecutor growing frustrated as she tried to keep her witnesses on the same page. Here's what Nancy said, she was really a little impatient with saying that you know that you had told me. I mean, I gathered that she had said she hadn't seen it, and now she changed her story. In the end, Letterer would only call Nancy Spirow to testify about the scratch. Nancy sat uncomfortably in the witness chair as her friend Carl looked on. She was emphatic there was no scratch, the implication being that it must have been Anna who scratched him on the night of her death. Well, I was trying to count trade and to be as honest as I could, and I was so rattled as it was. It must have been so hard. She and her husband had been friends with both Carl and Anna. Carl sat quietly listening to his friend Nancy Sparrow testify against him. Well, he certainly didn't look at each other directly, but I was aware of his presidency. Meanwhile, there were two witnesses that said the scratch had been there all along. Carl's good friend Laurence Wiener, who had gone to Rikers to bail him out, and a woman who worked at Carl's gallery. Both took the stand to say that they'd seen Carl shortly before Anna's death, and that he did indeed have something on his face, maybe a scratch, maybe a pimple. Not only did these two witnesses not agree on what the mark was, they also didn't agree on where that mark was. Was it his nose or the side of his face. Either way, the defense addressed the evidence by planting seeds of doubt about it. For better or worse, the rule of law is designed to work in favor of the accused, but this case wasn't only playing out in a courtroom. This case was being discussed in every corner of the art world, because layered on top of the police gaffs, the suppressed evidence, and the seeds of doubt, there was a mixture of betrayal and disbelief that Carl Andre, the metaphorical father of minimalism, the ethical Marxist, the intellectual, the supporter of women's causes, could do something so monstrous. Even though Nancy Spirow was willing to testify against Carl, you can hear how ambivalent and confused her husband, artistly On Galabi, is at the idea that someone like Carl could do something so horrible. He told Robert Katz, there might be other things at stake than I'm in punishment. You don't want to see such a person brought down, because if that person who's brought down the whole range of you're what you have thought conceived, the alot is tainted. So the best way to protect him was to respect as a wish for rural silence, and also to take him at his word. Right, How could Carl, who represents the purity of the desart, how could he have done such an act like them? Carol represents something. I can't tell you how important he was symbolically, and that may be why Elizabeth Lederer had such difficulty getting people to talk. B Ruby Rich remembers how surprised she was about all of it. The assistant DA who was trying the case, said to me that in her career she had never encountered a wall of silence like this one, except in mafia cases. So I think that the art world was a closed world. I certainly agree that the art world is a closed world. We are a social formation structured by deep friendships that mix business with pleasure, love with money, and perhaps because the lines between personal and public are so thin, it's a world in which discretion is paramount. But when does discretion become silence? And what happens when people get fed up with that silence. We'll come back to the trial, but first I'm going fast forward up to the almost present, to a time when so many women were about to take aim at the walls of silence around them. The me Too movement was about to explode, and the air seemed filled with the tension that comes from being fed up. Now, when carl Andrea's work went on view, a generation of artists who revered Ana Mendieta was vocal about their displeasure, and they showed up to protest. They painted their hands red, linked arms and blocked the entrance of a museum in Germany. Cannavanieta was a woman of color, a refugee, an evidence following her death points towards the domestic violence there was ensu They dramatically cried inside the galleries where Andrea's sculptures were displayed. All of this was happening as plans were being made to bring carl Andrea's retrospective to the museum in Los Angeles, where I had landed my dream job of chief curator. But as the exhibition made its way to LA instead of thinking about Carl, I found myself thinking a lot more about Anna, And the more I thought about Anna and her work, the more uncomfortable I became thinking about Carl and his work. I'd had a serious change of heart. Like the protesters, I also didn't think we should be celebrating someone who had been accused of murder. But the reality was the ship had sailed. There was no turning back. Still, I felt like I had to do something. But what? A few months before the show, I invited a group of women I admired, artists, professors, curators to talk it out. One of them was an artist named Andrea Bowers. The thing I remember about that meeting is one of the participation and saying that there would be protests, and then another participant saying there will be blood. I do remember that because right because there had been this previous protest where animal blood had been thrown. Yeah. I really felt in a certain way it would require you and others in your position, as well as other artists, to speak out publicly against it. But I also felt like you felt like you would not have your job if you did that. You were looking for a creative solution. I didn't have the guts to step down at that point. I also did not realize the intensity of like institutional kind of submission, Like how can it be that there can be so many curators in these institutions and one curator can't say I'm uncomfortable with that show. I really believe there should be public internal discourse. I mean that's a democracy, right, Yeah, this is a pretty common misconception. An art museum is definitely not a democracy. In fact, they are the opposite of democracy. Like most workplaces, they are a very highly evolved hierarchy. The reality was the show was going to go on, which meant, pragmatically speaking, all that could be done was some light window dressing. We hosted a talk by a feminist art historian, one of the very few who was willing to discuss the accusations against Carl, the very same person who had also been invited to talk at DIA, But that was it. On opening night, felt vaguely nauseous. I couldn't tell what I feared more that the protesters would show up or that they wouldn't. They showed A group of women had lit candles and were handing out small xeroxes with honest picture on them. My wife brought one home and propped it up on our kitchen counter. I avoided their somber picket line. That night was the one and only time I visited the Carl Andrea exhibition. It was a really sad night for me, and the next morning, when I had my coffee and looked it on his picture, I just couldn't shake the feeling that I wasn't down with business as usual anymore. Next time, on Death of an Artist it was totally blamed the victim, but with an extra twist. They were trying to establish that she killed herself, like this was some sort of culminating art piece. Judges tend to be more meticulous about what a reasonable doubt is. This is press play. I'm Malone brand. Let's talk now about some bad news that's hit a couple of local museums. Death of an Artist is a co production between Pushkin Industries, Something Else and Sony Music Entertainment. Written and hosted by me Helen Mouldsworth. Executive producers are Lizzie Jacobs, Tom Kinig, Lietamlad, Jacob Weisberg and Lucas Werner. Produced by Maria Luisa Tucker, editing by Lizzie Jacobs. Our managing producer is Jacob Smith. Associate producers are pood Ru and Eloise Linton. Additional production helped by Tally Abacassas. Anamandieta's quotes were read by Tanya burgera special thanks to the New York Public Radio Archive, engineered by Sam Baar, fact checking by Andrea Lopez Crusado. Our theme song is by Pooge Rue. If you of this show, consider subscribing to Pushkin Plus to listen early, add free and get exclusive bonus content. Look for the Pushkin Plus channel on Apple Podcasts or at pushkin dot fm. Find more great podcasts from Sonymusic Entertainment at sonymusic dot com Backslash Podcasts

Death of an Artist

You’ve heard of Jackson Pollock but you may have never heard of Lee Krasner. Krasner was an artist,  
Social links
Follow podcast
Recent clips
Browse 18 clip(s)