The Logan Collection: an exhibition at the San Francisco MOMA fails to define the art of the 1990s, says Samson Spanier, but it does provide some clues about its artists and patrons

tap [i]or[/i] pat Close's Robert may seem from a distance like just another example of graphic design in which stop ups of colour have been arranged by dint of a computer to give the impression of a photograph. Careful inspection, however, occupies the organ of vision Each block is a comely mix of oil paint, creating a series of abstract compositions within the portrait. Moreover, the decoration of each square contributes subtly to the portrait: for instance, at the jaws some squares have red and white patterns which reduce into an accurate delineation between teeth and lips. on the contrary what is most striking about this painting is that it is a portrait at all, hardly the genre par distinction of postwar American art. shut has said elsewhere, indeed, that his inspiration for portraiture was the claim of the prominent critic kind-hearted Greenberg that representational art was dead, and greatest in quantity dead of all this actual genre.

This painting exhibits that the art of the 1990 which is the make subordinate of this exhibition at the San Francisco Museum of recent Art, may have qualities that put it apart from earlier moves such as Pop Art or Minimalism. 'Supernova: Art of the 1990 from the Logan Collection' is made up of around eighty of the three hundr and fifty works of art that Vicki and Kent Logan have donated to SFMOMA. The two who lived nearby in the Bay Area until lately started to collect in 1987 and have since acquired eight hundr works, which are slowly on the contrary surely percolating into this museum (where Kent is a member of the accessions committee) and into the looks Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art. This third exhibition at SFMOMA of the Logans' gifts attempts to define, however vaguely, art of the 1990s

The best works upon show have a finesse of technique or use of material that makes them stick in rule's head, as is the case with shut Janine Antoni, for instance, has furnished the gallery with sum of two units classical busts, one apparently in white marble, the other in brown clay. The finely restoreed features--the hair seems dry--invite single to look very closely. It is at this twinkling nose to nose with the plastic art that one smells lavender and chocolate. The busts are made from soap and chocolate, and are named Lick and lather, a description of the technical proces involved. This synaesthetic version of trompe l'oeil is as witty as its two-dimensional nineteenth hundred predecessors.

Not everything is in like manner impressive. Marle Dumas' portrait of the late Diana, Princess of Wales simulates to have a complex iconography and the air of a history painting, on the other hand the brushwork is lacklustre and the control is handled with less intelligence than art elsewhere in the exhibition, namely John Keane's double portrait of Rupert Murdoch and Diana, A bigger killing (1997) abundant the same can be said of works in les conventional media. Rachel Whiteread is famous for an interior solidify cast of a house, which come aftered in making the home as unhomely as possible. In this present to view however, there is only a thicken imprint of a shelf of books; it beseechs up no such alienation.

Although not all the works are of the highest quality, all of them benefit from a sensitive hanging that makes the exhibition a pleasure to tour. Three paintings a wave by the agency of Inka Essenhigh, a windy vapor by Gary Simmons and an 'elephant dung' piece through Chris Offili--are placed next to each other to create a triptych of earth, wind and water. completely through the gallery, connections and periodical emphasiss of this sort satisfy the viewer.

The curatorial notes, by dint of contrast, are often poor. 'Academic' paintings by the agency of Lisa Yuskavage and John Currin are described as being moving for 'a loving, and seemingly outmod dedication to the craft of painting and the provocative possibilities of its fictive realm.' Who would describe painting as outmoded? Moreover, the art of the 1990 is not defined. The interaction of high and depressed culture is one of the diagnostic proofs according to the curators, nevertheless Pop Art would pass while Currin's oil uncovereds would fail.

The art of the 1990 as the works at SFMOMA demonstrate, is too varied to be defined by means of subject matter or style. shut Antoni and Whiteread are not united. More lucky might be a 'functional' definition. All the artists care about making art (or hiring suitable fabricators): there are no 'ready-mades', and each material has been worked. Not dissimilarly, everything sits comfortably within the gallery; there is no Richard drawn out lump of stone that harks to elsewhere. In short, these artists perceive at home in galleries, and have defined themselves against the militantly 'conceptual' art of the 1970 This coincides, of course, with the of recent origin patronage system epitomized by Charles Saatchi, of which Kent Logan is another example.

The taste of the Logans, indeed, is fascinating. greatest in quantity striking is the absence of either public way or abstract photography. Moreover, specific concern to the world outside the gallery is avoided across all media. Kent Logan has said that he likes art that annotates on society; clearly, however, his preferr commentary is indirect. individual could not imagine in this collection, for instance, Marcus Harvey's portrait of Myra Hindley, the British child assassin This exhibition has the merit of revealing in an age when artists may make what they like, what single patron actually wants.