Still trying to understand contemporary art?

What is it? What does it mean? and the usual tropes "My kid could paint that", "These people must be idiots/insane/con-artists"...

Is the artist playing tricks with me? Well, sometimes yes. But is that something bad? We enjoy movies, even though we know these are produced with computer generated effects, and the people are just actors playing roles. What about magicians (as as they are now called, illusionists)? We know the woman in the box isn't really sawn in half (although it would be an attention getting show if she were - even though the show would close that night)?

For the person trying to understand (and perhaps even enjoy) contemporary art, one book I have found interesting is: Ways of Looking: How toExperience Contemporary Art by Ossian Ward (2014).

The author has a system for approaching art with an open mind - a "tabula rasa" (clean slate, for those who don't recall the Latin phrase).  Then using a step-by-step set of simple tools to allow users to come to their own understandings and conclusions about the art.

These Photos are Really Sweet!

This article in the online magazine Slate is about a photo series by Blake Little of models covered in honey (warning: some nudity involved). The photos are arresting, and  interesting, but it seems even more so are the comments. Many are focused on the mechanics of the photo shoot, the appropriateness of doing this to begin with, and the usual assortment of "is this art" responses. What do you think?

 

Left: Paul, 2012. Right: Tao, 2012.

What is an artist's intent?

Water Lilies by Monet

While listening to a radio interview about a film director, the reviewer compared his work to that of Monet's paintings, with this comment:

"They don't look like waterlilies; they look like how it feels to look at waterlilies."

Water Lilies
Claude Monet (French, Paris 1840–1926 Giverny) 1916–19
Dimensions: 51 1/4 x 79 in. (130.2 x 200.7 cm)

Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gift of Louise Reinhardt Smith, 1983

The Museum Visit

Paintings and other items combined in this arrangement at the Barnes Foundation, Philadelphia.

As part of my art history classes I require students to visit a museum and report on works of art. And by museum, I mean an actual museum, not a book or an on-line gallery. There are several good reasons for doing this.

Photography and its delivery of images can be deceptive; when printed in a book, a painting may not have the life and subtlety, or in some cases, the impact of the actual work. When viewed on-line, the image created by the illuminated pixels on your screen again, may present an image more vibrant than the original. Whether these are good or bad effects, they are still at least one step removed from the physical artifact.

What do you see when you see the actual work of art? For one thing, the scale. It is not uncommon when coming across a work of art you have only seen in reproduction to be struck by the size. No matter how good the image, facing a wall size work involves you in a totally different way. By the same token, you can search in vain for a work you have seen pictured, because you didn't realize how small a painting it was.

Another aspect missing in reproduction is texture. Until we have some new technology (and we undoubtedly will), images are flat and smooth,  but the surfaces of the art work will be readily apparent in real life (sometimes even providing a temptation to touch the art work).

A third aspect to the museum installation is the relationship among the various works on display. Sometimes this will be an arrangement of works similar in technique, country of origin or historical period, but as is seen more often now in museums, juxtapositions to compare and contrast, making the viewer see artworks in new contexts.

Not that there aren't downsides to the museum visit. In addition to "museum fatigue", when we try to take in too much, this pace can also cause us to spend too little time having a personal interaction with the art. There was an interesting article in the New York Times October 9, 2014 by Stephanie Rosenbloom that suggested we slow down when visiting a museum.

From the article:

When you go to the library,” said James O. Pawelski, the director of education for the Positive Psychology Center at the University of Pennsylvania, “you don’t walk along the shelves looking at the spines of the books and on your way out tweet to your friends, ‘I read 100 books today!'” Yet that’s essentially how many people experience a museum. “They see as much of art as you see spines on books,” said Professor Pawelski, who studies connections between positive psychology and the humanities. “You can’t really see a painting as you’re walking by it.”

I have noticed when in museums, particularly ones with iconic works, the number of people photographing not just the works, but taking pictures of their companions in front of the work, or even "selfies" with the works. The reasons for this must be varied, and probably interesting. Have you done this? What does it say about your relationship to art? Reading the linked article may give you some thoughts.

Vermeer and Camera

Vermeer's "The Music Lesson"

The other evening we finally got to see the film "Tim'sVermeer". In short, this is the story of Tim Jenison, an inventor and entrepreneur who became interested in the "photographic" quality of  the Dutch painter Johanne Vermeer's work, and wanted to see if technology aided the artist. His theory is that a primitive (by our standards) optical device, the "camera obscura", which was well known at that time, was used for drawing. He did not understand, however, how this would have aided in the color. Bit of a spoiler, a mirror was also required.

Jenison, an art novice, finds he can make an almost perfect replica of a photograph using his technique. He then moves on to the next step, working as he believed Johannes Vermeer (1632–1675)  did.

The film takes us through the process of recreating the physical setup of the studio arrangement, including replicating the items appearing in the painting "The Music Lesson".

There are two art experts and authors appearing in the film.

Philip Steadman, author of  Vermeer’s Camera, examined the paintings of Vermeer and through geometry believes he has proof that the painter used a camera obscura to create the drawing/composition.

Artist David Hockney wrote Secret Knowledge, where he is convinced the use of technology (in terms of lenses, etc.) was in use by a number of artists, and earlier than believed.

I found this all intriguing, and like any modern person, found myself "googling" into the night to learn more.

As contrasted with the "Vermeer" replica in the film, it doesn't seem that these two authors actually put their theories to the test to create a painting. There were also some interesting comments in some of the reviews and articles below. The film comments that there was no underpainting or drawing in Vermeer's work - but this is contradicted by critics, as there is evidence of underpainting, and the fact that drawing done in chalk would be obliterated during the painting process. The film oddly enough shows Jenison's painting having a drawing marked on the canvas.

Another quibble was the selection of the work; probably for dramatic effect, the work selected is in the Queen of England's collection, and much was made of the fact that it was not available, but that Jenison was given an opportunity to see it privately, when in fact, the work is on view for special exhibitions, including the National Gallery.

So, still not conclusive. Did Vermeer rely on this technology? Use it in portions of paintings or only certain paintings? Or did he simply have a unique "eye" and a repertoire of artistic "tricks" to create illusions. When I look at images of  all the known Vermeers, they seem to vary in their "photographic" appearance, with some looking decidedly "painterly".

Young Woman with a Water Pitcher, ca. 1662. Metropolitan Museum of Art, Marquand Collection, Gift of Henry G. Marquand, 1889 (89.15.21)

Study of a Young Woman, ca. 1665–67, Metropolitan Museum of Art. Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Charles Wrightsman, in memory of Theodore Rousseau, Jr., 1979 (1979.396.1)

Perhaps more people will be inspired to experiment with these theories (or maybe Vermeer's equipment will turn up at a yard sale) and we will have a more conclusive ending to this story.

Some additional resources.

You can find just about everything we know of Vermeer here. See a page of this website dealing with Vermeer's possible use of a camera obscura here.

Some additional reviews, commentary and interesting stuff:

http://www.webexhibits.org/hockneyoptics/

http://www.arthistorynews.com/articles/2614_Tims_notVermeer

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/jan/28/tims-vermeer-fails

http://www.artsatl.com/2014/03/review-67/

Museum Visits: The New Barnes and the Michener

The warm and welcoming entrance to the new Barnes Foundation museum in Philadelphia.
 

I had been looking forward to a visit to the new Barnes Foundation Art Museum for quite some time.. We had visited the museum in its previous incarnation in Merion, on the outskirts of Philadelphia. Due to local restrictions, and the restrictions of the foundation, visiting the Barnes was a complete pain in the ass in those days. After a contentious battle to break the conditions of Dr. Barnes will, and a controversial grab by the art/charity establishment, the collection has moved to a new museum in Philadelphia's museum district. Inside a severely plain stone box, they have recreated the interior and collection arrangement of the original museum. In addition, whether by accident or intent, visiting the new Barnes is also a complete pain in the ass. Limited numbers of visitors, timed tickets and a strange arrangement makes it rather user-unfriendly.  

 What is interesting is the arrangement and juxtapositions of the works, espousing Barnes' theories about art and design connections (whether interesting or just whacko I'll leave to others to judge). In addition, the framing of many works was interesting, in that it showed the taste of Barnes and the period.

 Works are mostly tightly grouped, in fairly small rooms, along with African artifacts, early American iron work and furniture, etc. There are some masterpieces here, along with many smaller and lesser works, which makes the collection interesting in that it is a personal statement more so than a curated collection of a particular school or history of art.

 Some of the small works (which can often be overlooked in large institutions) are really gems, such as the Demuths, and there are some nice examples of  Prendergast and Mattisse. If you are at all interested in art, worth the visit, if only to see a different take on the museum arrangement and experience.

Wish I had some pictures taken inside, but of course they don't allow that. You can see some images on the Barnes website.

 

Entrance to the Michener Museum of Art

 

The next morning we visited the Michener Museum of Art in Doylestown, Pennsylvania. A wonderful small museum, with a collection that features local artists and craft workers. There is a good selection of works from the school of Pennsylvania impressionism, which to my view, seems a bit "grittier" and realistic than, for example, the "Old Lyme" artists.

 

 The Twins: Virginia and Jane, 1917 by Joseph Pearson. 60 x 72 inches.

The painting shown here, "The Twins", is one of the most arresting in the collection. I know that every time we see twins represented we immediately want to compare it to Diane Arbus, but there is something about this painting that makes it hard to look away.

 

 

 

 

 

At the Philadelphia Museum of Art

Your professor in front of a Barnett Newman painting at the Philadelphia Museum of Art.

Even though it would mean a long day of museums, the travel logistics required a full day spent in Philadelphia museums. Since  have been to the Phildadelphia Museum of Art, I tried to limit what we would view and not get "museum fatigue". Even trying to be casual about the visit, it is such a treasure trove that it was too easy to keep moving on and on.

We did get to see the Vermeer Young Woman Seated at a Virginal currently on loan to the museum. This is one of the last paintings by Vermeer, and one of the most recent to be authenticated. This discovery made quite a splash in the art world, and while accepted as Vermeer (apparently the canvas is from the same bolt as used for other Vermeer works) it is still questioned by some. One theory is that it was actually done by his daughter, or that there was assistance, or completion by someone else. Prior to this, I had only seen it in photos, so was anxious to view it in person. Having done so, I can say that if it is in fact by Vermeer, it is one of the most unappealing Vermeers I have seen.

There was an interesting exhibit in the gallery devoted to American crafts. One artist new to me was Bruce Metcalf, a jeweler/sculptor who created some very strange and eerie pieces.

Chance Encounter in the Wasteland
Bruce Metcalf, American, born 1949

 

You can find more about this artist at www.brucemetcalf.com/