This is an article Saltzman writes about Gerhard Richter's series "October 18, 1977" (1988), and its relation to Barnett Newman's "Stations of the Cross, Lema Sabachthan" (1958) and to Christianity in general.

Saltzman refer to Richter's work as "history painting", at the same time questioning the appropriateness and actuality of the term. So, it is interesting how the definition of "history painting" has changed since 18th century? As an alternative, Saltzman introduces "commemorative" or "memorial" painting as a style that can better suit Richter's work. What are the differences between historical and commemorative paintings? Why Richter's work with media subjects (mediated) can be commemorative? Aren't commemoration and memory-related terms imply more personal approach? Saltzman also states that in history of modernist painting there were very few serial works, cycles. Why is it so? How does a series of works oppose modernist idea?

Saltzman discusses if an artist and/or art-critic should take an engaged political position towards some material they're working with (if Baader-Meinhof group members were assassinated by the government of had committed suicides). Saltzman distance herself from the core of the conflict and discuss only positions of Richter, Storr and Buchloh towards it. This raises questions around politically-engaged art. For example: what audience it is aimed at, how it can be perceived from the other political side, how politically-engaged critics approach politically-engaged art, can art be not politically-engaged at all, or can critique nowadays avoid being political?

#history #media #memory #death #politics #painting #photography