Jason Farago Reveals Himself

New York Times art critic Jason Farago inadvertently revealed something about himself in his review of Maurizio Cattelan’s work "Comedian," which consists of a banana duct-taped to the wall and which sells for $120,000.

Farago says this work is ironic and is a satire of the contemporary art world. But he prefers it to more direct criticism of the art world, such as "I Can't Believe You Morons Actually Buy this Shit" by the British graffiti artist Banksy. 

Why does Farrago prefer Cattelan? He compares "Comedian" to an earlier work by Cattelan, where he duct-taped his dealer to the wall, writing: 

"The banana should be seen in the context of this earlier work, which places the art market itself on the wall, drooping and pitiful. … Mr. Cattelan directs these barbs at art from inside the art world, rather than lobbing insults from some cynical distance. His entire career has been a testament to an impossible desire to create art sincerely, stunted here by money, there by his own doubts."

This is the end of the review: he doesn't go on to explain why it is better to remain in an art world that stunts you rather than leaving it and acting independently, as Banksy does.

A look at art history is enough to show us that this claim is completely implausible. For example, the Impressionists and the Vienna Succession left the mainstream academic art world that stunted them and produced fresh new art. Would they have done better to stay in the mainstream art world, paint in the academic style that they found stultifying - but include subtle ironies in these paintings showing how much they hate the academic art world as a testament to their impossible desire to create art sincerely? Obviously, this sort of hypocrisy is much more "cynical" than acting independently so you can forthrightly say what you really mean.

Farago's claim is so implausible that the only explanation is that it reflects his view of himself. His job as New York Times art critic is to produce admiring reviews of works in mainstream avant-gardist art world. But here he reveals that he really hates those works and considers them insincere and stunted by money - showing that his own work as a critic is also insincere and stunted by the money and prestige he gets from being an art critic of a major newspaper.

By saying he admires Cattelan's stunted work because Cattelan is an insider, he justifies his own choice of being an art-world insider.  

The review is at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/08/arts/design/a-critics-defense-of-cattelan-banana-.html