Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Art as Propaganda Part II
A couple of weeks ago, I blogged about the Holocaust Museum's current exhibition about Nazi Propaganda, and the current Occupy Wall Street's various posters. It seems that there is yet another new piece of art as propaganda hitting the streets.
A few days ago, Shepard Fairey released a new poster for the Occupy Wall Street movement. It is a play on his 2008 Obama "Hope" poster, although this poster incorporates the masked image of Guy Fawkes. By modifying the Obama poster, this new version is a direct call to the president to support the movement. The image of Guy Fawkes has been incorporated into the movement already, with protestors donning the mask.
The image was released on Obey Giant's website on November 18th. Below is Fairey's comment on the poster:
"This image represents my support for the Occupy movement, a grassroots movement spawned to stand up against corruption, imbalance of power, and failure of our democracy to represent and help average Americans. On the other hand, as flawed as the system is, I see Obama as a potential ally of the Occupy movement if the energy of the movement is perceived as constructive, not destructive. I still see Obama as the closest thing to “a man on the inside” that we have presently. Obviously, just voting is not enough. We need to use all of our tools to help us achieve our goals and ideals. However, I think idealism and realism need to exist hand in hand. Change is not about one election, one rally, one leader, it is about a constant dedication to progress and a constant push in the right direction. Let’s be the people doing the right thing as outsiders and simultaneously push the insiders to do the right thing for the people. I’m still trying to work out copyright issues I may face with this image, but feel free to share it and stay tuned…"
Interesting to note is the last sentence, in which Fairey makes reference to his legal issues with the original poster. The Associated Press alleged that Fairey used one of their photographs to create the poster image of Obama. The issue boiled down to copyright infringement versus fair-use.
Is the image merely a source of inspiration, or is it a direct violation of artistic ownership? This was the issue with the 2008 poster, and based on Fairey's statement above, it seems that he is anticipating similar backlash from this new poster as well.
Additionally, this poster is a direct message to President Obama. The poster reads, "Mister President, We HOPE You're On Our Side." This message, paired with the image, makes the poster particularly powerful. It also begs for a response from Obama.
Will this poster garner a response? And, because of the legal battles Fairey has faced before, is this image more prone to interrogation?
A few days ago, Shepard Fairey released a new poster for the Occupy Wall Street movement. It is a play on his 2008 Obama "Hope" poster, although this poster incorporates the masked image of Guy Fawkes. By modifying the Obama poster, this new version is a direct call to the president to support the movement. The image of Guy Fawkes has been incorporated into the movement already, with protestors donning the mask.
Courtesy of Obey Giant
The image was released on Obey Giant's website on November 18th. Below is Fairey's comment on the poster:
"This image represents my support for the Occupy movement, a grassroots movement spawned to stand up against corruption, imbalance of power, and failure of our democracy to represent and help average Americans. On the other hand, as flawed as the system is, I see Obama as a potential ally of the Occupy movement if the energy of the movement is perceived as constructive, not destructive. I still see Obama as the closest thing to “a man on the inside” that we have presently. Obviously, just voting is not enough. We need to use all of our tools to help us achieve our goals and ideals. However, I think idealism and realism need to exist hand in hand. Change is not about one election, one rally, one leader, it is about a constant dedication to progress and a constant push in the right direction. Let’s be the people doing the right thing as outsiders and simultaneously push the insiders to do the right thing for the people. I’m still trying to work out copyright issues I may face with this image, but feel free to share it and stay tuned…"
Interesting to note is the last sentence, in which Fairey makes reference to his legal issues with the original poster. The Associated Press alleged that Fairey used one of their photographs to create the poster image of Obama. The issue boiled down to copyright infringement versus fair-use.
Is the image merely a source of inspiration, or is it a direct violation of artistic ownership? This was the issue with the 2008 poster, and based on Fairey's statement above, it seems that he is anticipating similar backlash from this new poster as well.
Additionally, this poster is a direct message to President Obama. The poster reads, "Mister President, We HOPE You're On Our Side." This message, paired with the image, makes the poster particularly powerful. It also begs for a response from Obama.
Will this poster garner a response? And, because of the legal battles Fairey has faced before, is this image more prone to interrogation?
Friday, November 11, 2011
When Authenticity is Challenged, What Happens to "Quality"?
Art forgery is an area that I found absolutely fascinating. The desire to not only duplicate techniques, but to entirely assume another artist's style as ones own is interesting. There are artists who do so with the intent of passing the work off as another's (i.e. John Myatt), but there are artists whose work is incorrectly assigned to someone else.
It seems that this issue still persists even with today's technology. The Puskin Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow is currently featuring an exhibition, "“Paris School: 1905-32," in which a work of art's authenticity is being questioned. "Portrait of Maverna" is attributed to Modigliani, but recently there have been conflicting debates as to its authenticity.
On the one hand, the president of the Modigliani Institute, Christian Parisot, has authenticated the work. In addition to his legal right to declare the work as genuine, he also provided documentation as proof. This included a statement by Maverna stating that she had posed for Modigliani.
On the other hand, the Swiss Institute for Art Research analyzed the pigments and stated that several of the components were not manufactured until after the 1940s (and certainly after the artist's death in the 1920s). This analysis was done at the request of a Russian collector when it was available for purchase in 2006. The results disuaded the collector from the $3 million purchase.
It seems like these issues of genuine artwork always have competing sides, each with reasonable arguments for authenticity. Do you trust the experts, who know in their gut that something is/is not genuine? Do you trust scientific tests on the materials? Or do you rely on the provenance of a work to determine its place in history?
After everything is said and done, though, does it matter who the artist is? If this work is considered the same "quality" as a Modigliani, and has the similar if not the same alluring compositional, aesthetic, or subject aspects, does it matter if it is in fact the work of an unknown artist? This is of course assuming that the artwork is being unintentionally attributed to the wrong artist.
It seems like the artist, more often than not, defines the "quality". In fact, artists are in many cases the "brand" that museums and collectors covet. It is these same "brands" that define blockbuster exhibitions -- Picasso, Degas, Monet, etc. Are we concerned with the brand more than the product?
It seems that this issue still persists even with today's technology. The Puskin Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow is currently featuring an exhibition, "“Paris School: 1905-32," in which a work of art's authenticity is being questioned. "Portrait of Maverna" is attributed to Modigliani, but recently there have been conflicting debates as to its authenticity.
Courtest of The Art Newspaper
On the one hand, the president of the Modigliani Institute, Christian Parisot, has authenticated the work. In addition to his legal right to declare the work as genuine, he also provided documentation as proof. This included a statement by Maverna stating that she had posed for Modigliani.
On the other hand, the Swiss Institute for Art Research analyzed the pigments and stated that several of the components were not manufactured until after the 1940s (and certainly after the artist's death in the 1920s). This analysis was done at the request of a Russian collector when it was available for purchase in 2006. The results disuaded the collector from the $3 million purchase.
It seems like these issues of genuine artwork always have competing sides, each with reasonable arguments for authenticity. Do you trust the experts, who know in their gut that something is/is not genuine? Do you trust scientific tests on the materials? Or do you rely on the provenance of a work to determine its place in history?
After everything is said and done, though, does it matter who the artist is? If this work is considered the same "quality" as a Modigliani, and has the similar if not the same alluring compositional, aesthetic, or subject aspects, does it matter if it is in fact the work of an unknown artist? This is of course assuming that the artwork is being unintentionally attributed to the wrong artist.
It seems like the artist, more often than not, defines the "quality". In fact, artists are in many cases the "brand" that museums and collectors covet. It is these same "brands" that define blockbuster exhibitions -- Picasso, Degas, Monet, etc. Are we concerned with the brand more than the product?
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Art as Propaganda
Last week's visit to the Holocaust Museum to view its current exhibition, "State of Deception: The Power of Nazi Propaganda," really showed how much needs to be taken into consideration when planning an exhibition. Particularly for an institution like the Holocaust Museum, which must deal with increased sensitivity given the subject matter, exhibition planning can be a tricky business.
I thought that the exhibition was fascinating, if not a little overwhelming. I spent roughly 45 minutes in the exhibition, and I only made it through 3/4 of it. Granted, I am a "reader", and tend to stop at most if not all of the wall labels, but I could have easily spent another 30 minutes.
While discussing the exhibition with the curators and my classmates, it struck me how much propaganda still dominates much of our society. From last election's Obama Hope posters, to the current Occupy Wall Street posters, art can definitely become an influential tool.
Interestingly, both the Obama Hope posters and the Occupy Wall Street posters were created by Shepherd Fairey. Like the Hope poster, Fairey continues to create posters with overtly political themes. The Occupy Wall Street poster looks to the past for inspiration, reminiscent of the 1960s and 1970s. This poster, like many of Fairey's work, rouses emotions and encourages the involvement of a younger generation. It is meant to be all-inclusive, open to people from all backgrounds.
But is it propaganda? It simplifies a complicated issue, it is biased, and it employs symbols to achieve a particular goal. But to me, "propaganda" has such a negative connotation. But advertising is just that: a method employed to sway public opinion. Can something be both art and propaganda, though? Art often has an opinion -- political, religious, etc., and it intends to influence people.
"Let the Occupy movement's camps and protests and marches continue generating such art -- art that inspires interracial unity where it may not yet exist, art that reminds us of the voices unheard, art that galvanizes practical social change when nothing seems to give, art that, in Du Bois' words, tries to make the world both beautiful and right." - CNN, How Art Propels Occupy Wall Street
"State of Deception: The Power of Nazi Propaganda"
Courtesy of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
http://www.ushmm.org
I thought that the exhibition was fascinating, if not a little overwhelming. I spent roughly 45 minutes in the exhibition, and I only made it through 3/4 of it. Granted, I am a "reader", and tend to stop at most if not all of the wall labels, but I could have easily spent another 30 minutes.
While discussing the exhibition with the curators and my classmates, it struck me how much propaganda still dominates much of our society. From last election's Obama Hope posters, to the current Occupy Wall Street posters, art can definitely become an influential tool.
Interestingly, both the Obama Hope posters and the Occupy Wall Street posters were created by Shepherd Fairey. Like the Hope poster, Fairey continues to create posters with overtly political themes. The Occupy Wall Street poster looks to the past for inspiration, reminiscent of the 1960s and 1970s. This poster, like many of Fairey's work, rouses emotions and encourages the involvement of a younger generation. It is meant to be all-inclusive, open to people from all backgrounds.
But is it propaganda? It simplifies a complicated issue, it is biased, and it employs symbols to achieve a particular goal. But to me, "propaganda" has such a negative connotation. But advertising is just that: a method employed to sway public opinion. Can something be both art and propaganda, though? Art often has an opinion -- political, religious, etc., and it intends to influence people.
"Let the Occupy movement's camps and protests and marches continue generating such art -- art that inspires interracial unity where it may not yet exist, art that reminds us of the voices unheard, art that galvanizes practical social change when nothing seems to give, art that, in Du Bois' words, tries to make the world both beautiful and right." - CNN, How Art Propels Occupy Wall Street
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
A Goddess Goes Home
I have recently started reading the Smithsonian magazine cover-to-cover. Usually with magazines, I skim through the pages, looking for interesting articles and dog-earing the pages as I go along. With the Smithsonian magazine, however, it seems that more and more of their articles touch on a topic explored in one of my classes.
The November issue, which arrived in my mailbox over the weekend, has a cover story that instantly sparked my interest. "Journey of a Goddess: A Case Study" discusses how The Getty's 2,400-year-old statue of Aphrodite was returned to Italy this past March. One of the crown jewels of the Getty, this statue in many ways represents recent issues of repatriation. The statue was acquired with insufficient provenance, and after years of back-and-forth, it has now been returned to the legal and/or rightful country of ownership.
This conflit is not unique to The Getty -- in the past 5 years, The Met, The Boston MFA, the Cleveland Museum of Arts, and the Princeton University Art Museum have all been forced to return artifacts. More than 100 artifacts have been returned, in total worth almost $1 billion.
Although these artifacts have been acquired in a dubious manner, it is interesting to me that the museum often does not admit its direct fault. In addition, many countries provides substitutes, or offer an extension for the object in question. The Aphrodite statue, for instance, remained on view at the Getty until December 2010, even though they completed their agreement in August 2007. Is this just a way to soften the blow of losing an important piece of the collection?
Although it seems only right that artifacts acquired illegally be returned to their country of origin, there seems to be one major issue: at what point do you stop returning plundered goods?
And, if an artifact is receiving the conservation and security required in its current location, what happens when it is to be relocated to a facility which is unable to maintain those standards? The Aphrodite statue, for example, was housed in a museum with over 400,000 visitors annually. Now, it is in the Aidone museum which received about 10,000. Although there are plans to try and increase attendance, the museum cannot accommodate any more than 200 visitors at a time.
I think that it is only right to return these items, but it is definitely comes at a cost. Hopefully Aphrodite will attract visitors to Aidone, and receive the care it deserves.
Friday, October 21, 2011
"30 Americans" at the Corcoran Gallery
Kehinde Wiley, "Sleep", 2008. Oil on canvas, 132 x 300 inches.
Courtesy of Rubell Family Collection, Miami.
It seems to me that fewer and fewer exhibitions have a profound effect on me -- I am not sure if that is a reflection on the quality of the exhibitions, or if my standards have changed over time. I really wish that I left more museums with that feeling of euphoria. It reminds me of knowing a secret, or discovering something new about yourself or society. I usually end up leaving feeling either neutral or disappointed. Maybe it takes more to "wow" me these days, which I hope is the case instead of lackluster exhibitions.
With 30 Americans" at the Corcoran, though, I was definitely "wowed". I can't stop thinking about the pieces in the exhibition, and I also can't stop raving about it. I have already highly recommended the exhibit to several AMUS students, and I only saw the show a few days ago!
Although entitled "30 Americans", the exhibit actually features 31 aritsts, which leads me to believe that there was a last-minute addition to the show...otherwise I can't think of why you would intentionally miscount the arists...plus, I haven't gotten a straight answer from the Corcoran staff in regards to the title. It is intentional to call them American artists, and not African-American artists. I think that this choice resonates with the works and themes presented. Racial, sexual, and historical identies are just a few of the themes explored through over 70 pieces. The mediums represented are as diverse as the artists: painting, sculpture, drawings, photographs, and videos are all exhibited.
Xaviera Simmons, "One Day and Back Then (Standing)", 2007.
Color Photograph, 30 x 40 inches. Courtesy of Rubell Family Collection, Miami
One way that I gauge an exhibition is by how many "favorite" works you can pick out. While at the Corcoran for my internship on Wednesday, my supervisor Tiffany let me go take a look at the exhibition. When I got back, she wanted to hear which piece was my "favorite". I honestly couldn't pick just one -- there were too many pieces that were moving, interesting, or emotionally charged. The range of artists, styles, and themes makes the show incredibly interesting -- each gallery was almost a mini-exhibit in itself.
There were even a few "extras" that made the visitor experience even more interesting. The gallery is distributing postcards that read, "Say it loud, I'm ___ and I'm proud!" along with the exhibition title. I think that this is a gerat marketing tool -- you get a "souvenir" from the exhibition, but you can also send the postcard to friends, thereby encouraging them to visit as well. It also helps visitors create a connection by allowing you to fill in "what" you are.
They also have slips of paper that read, "Say it Loud: What is your reaction to 30 Americans at the Corcoran?" There is a table and chairs set up with writing utensils where visitors can reflect and share their opinions. Alongside the exterior of one of the last galleries, the wall is covered in black paper and is used as a bulletin board where you can post your reactions.
Although I am hesitant to ever "love" an exhibition, this one definitely came close. I am thrilled that the Corcoran is presenting an exhibition with this kind of depth, and I think that they did a phenomenal job. But...if I had to raise one issue, it would be that the entire exhibition comes from the Rubell Family Foundation. Drawing from one foundation is a tricky business, and there is always a risk that the exhibition is more than strictly mutually beneficial. In the Rubell's case, they rarely sell portions of their collection, so the chance that the exhibition is purely an economical ploy seems minimal. However, is the Corcoran setting a standard for future exhibitions?
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
"The Great American Hall of Wonders"
Charles Willson Peale, The Artist in His Museum, 1822, oil on canvas,
Gift of Mrs. Sarah Harrison (The Joseph Harrison, Jr. Collection)
The exhibit theme seemed much too complex for the average visitor, though. The exhibition examined the 19th Century American belief that we are at our core an innovative people. I think that this mentality is still present today. We think that as Americans that we are naturally more creative, more self-reliant, harder workers, etc. But where did this idea come from?
SAAM examines this inventive energy in the 1800s through the exhibition of over 160 objects. Featuring objects ranging from paintings to patent models, the exhibit focused on six themes. To me, six themes is far too complex when considering that most visitors spend about 45 minutes in an exhibit and usually only take away three themes.
Also, I think that some of the themes were only evident after having Dr. Broun point them out. Although some -- such as the role of guns, which had its own room -- were easy to identify, a few were not quite as obvious. It was definitely an ambitious exhibit, and I am not so sure if all of its goals were achieved.
One of my classmates questioned Dr. Broun about the title of the exhibition. The title to me does not necessarily indicate what the exhibit is really about. I would have thought that the title would be something along the lines of "The American Spirit of Invention."
It definitely makes me wonder if visitors judge an exhibit by its title. Should the title entice? Should it provide a preview of the exhibit? Should it explain the theme? In this case, I think that the exhibition title did not accurately portray the exhibit, and if anything was detrimental to the theme of the exhibition.
Monday, October 10, 2011
LACMA Is Moving Mountains...Well, Boulders
"Levitated Mass" will feature a 456-foot long slot into the earth, over which a giant granite boulder will be installed so as to appear to hover. The boulder was selected by Heizer from Stone Valley Quarry, located about 60-miles east of LACMA. It is 340-pounds of solid granite, and measures at 21-feet high. Selected for its natural beauty, the granite is black -and-white with rust speckled throughout its mass.
Moving the boulder will require quite a bit of effort on the part of LACMA, however. Even though the quarry site is 60-miles away, the specialty rig required to move the boulder will need to take a route comprising of more than double the mileage. The rig, which is 295-feet long and 27-feet wide, will caterpillar its way at 6-miles per hour over the course of two weeks. The start date for this sojourn has been pushed back several times, currently slated to start on October 17th.
I am eagerly anticipating the installation of the boulder, however. I am hoping that it will be in place by the Thanksgiving holiday, when I will be visiting Los Angeles. The installation enables visitors to walk under the boulder, which will hover 15-feet above their heads.
I think that the use of LACMA's lush grounds as a space for public art is phenomenal. Possibly capitalizing on the success of Chris Burden's "Urban Light" installation, which has become a popular destination and photo op for tourists and residents alike, director Michael Govan seems to be actively pursuing a museum with a collection that exists outside of the walls, as well as inside.
However, costing $10 million has certainly raised concerns from the public. Considering the economy, particularly in California where budget cuts have become the norm, an endeavor of this magnitude is something to be considered carefully. Govan defends the expense, and makes a good point that these funds are going back into the California economy. LACMA is putting people to work, both at the quarry, with construction at LACMA, operating the rig, etc. But even if you do understand how the funds will effect the local economy, the cost and efforts of LACMA to move a rock still seem slightly frivolous.
All I can say is that I hope that this installation is worth it -- both in cost and effort.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Painting Big at the Corcoran -- Big, but Good?
The Corcoran Gallery of Art's new series, "Now at the Corcoran", presents contemporary exhibitions -- hence the "Now" part. It displays the work of one or two artists at a time, with exhibitions focusing on issues central to the dynamic communities of Washington, D.C. "Now" is one of the most definitive ways in which the Corcoran encourages a dialogue with the contemporary art scene.
Although I am currently interning at the Corcoran and have visited the gallery several times over the past month, this past weekend was the first time I spent an extended amount of time in the exhibitions. Since I am usually running between classes and my internship, I typically only have a few moments to visit the exhibitions. Taking advantage of the Corcoran's free admission during the month of September, I was able to visit all of the exhibitions and really linger through the gallery.
Through the end of the month, Chris Martin's exhibition, "Painting Big", is on display in three areas of the gallery. One of the first areas that visitors encounter is the gallery's central atrium. Here, three site-specific canvases by Martin are installed. The three canvases are huge -- 26 feet high and 17 feet across -- and create a room within a room. I did not like this installation -- it distracted me instead of enticed me. I am unsure if the artist created the pieces with the space truly in mind. One of the handouts for the exhibition states that this installation, "..forms a vibrant 'room' of color and pattern in the museum's central public space". Although the canvases do create this room, I think that it is too claustrophobic and the visitor is not able to fully view the canvases from this vantage point. I found it easier to view the canvases from the second floor balcony.
The three canvases are also intense -- hypnotic blacks and whites, dazzling glitter, and bright yellow and blue canvases are all arranged within close proximity of one another. Each canvas is individually intense. The exhibition title, "Painting Big", clearly refers to more than just the scale of the canvases. The same handout claims that the canvases in the atrium create a dialogue with the Beaux-Arts architecture it inhabits. "The patterns of curving forms echo the rhythm of the atrium's columns, and their height approaches its grandeur...they are aggressively not part of the background". I would maintain that they did not achieve that kind of echo with the building. The "aggression" they mention was certainly achieve, but I am not so sure that it was a good thing -- I found it instead distracting, if not a little jarring. It may have been intentional to introduce such intensity to the space, however I found it attempted to seriously dissuade me from visiting the rest of the exhibition.
With Martin's work, I tend to find his intent more interesting than the actual paintings. His engagement with landscapes -- both physical as well as mental -- is intriguing. The intentional cacophony of disjointed styles, colors, and shapes all create atmosphere and mood, but sometimes I find it more interesting to read about his works than to actually experience them. Often it is only when they are juxtaposed with one another that any kind of interest in generated. Individually, they can be a little one dimensional in my opinion.
If interest is achieved through exhibition, then, should these works be seen as individual pieces?
If it is through a disjointed perspective that an understanding or dialogue is created, than I suppose you could say that the entire exhibition is really about creating a harmony.
I started out thinking that the Martin exhibition was unsuccessful. But now I am wondering if it actually was successful -- I am still thinking about it. How can you judge an exhibition as successful? Is it the lasting impression on a visitor, regardless if positive or negative?
With this exhibition, I think that it is successful, in a backwards way. Kind of like the canvases themselves -- they are almost so wrong that it is right. The exhibition is the same way -- it is so disjointed that it actually makes sense.
Although I am currently interning at the Corcoran and have visited the gallery several times over the past month, this past weekend was the first time I spent an extended amount of time in the exhibitions. Since I am usually running between classes and my internship, I typically only have a few moments to visit the exhibitions. Taking advantage of the Corcoran's free admission during the month of September, I was able to visit all of the exhibitions and really linger through the gallery.
Courtesy of the Corcoran Gallery of Art, www.corcoran.org
Through the end of the month, Chris Martin's exhibition, "Painting Big", is on display in three areas of the gallery. One of the first areas that visitors encounter is the gallery's central atrium. Here, three site-specific canvases by Martin are installed. The three canvases are huge -- 26 feet high and 17 feet across -- and create a room within a room. I did not like this installation -- it distracted me instead of enticed me. I am unsure if the artist created the pieces with the space truly in mind. One of the handouts for the exhibition states that this installation, "..forms a vibrant 'room' of color and pattern in the museum's central public space". Although the canvases do create this room, I think that it is too claustrophobic and the visitor is not able to fully view the canvases from this vantage point. I found it easier to view the canvases from the second floor balcony.
The three canvases are also intense -- hypnotic blacks and whites, dazzling glitter, and bright yellow and blue canvases are all arranged within close proximity of one another. Each canvas is individually intense. The exhibition title, "Painting Big", clearly refers to more than just the scale of the canvases. The same handout claims that the canvases in the atrium create a dialogue with the Beaux-Arts architecture it inhabits. "The patterns of curving forms echo the rhythm of the atrium's columns, and their height approaches its grandeur...they are aggressively not part of the background". I would maintain that they did not achieve that kind of echo with the building. The "aggression" they mention was certainly achieve, but I am not so sure that it was a good thing -- I found it instead distracting, if not a little jarring. It may have been intentional to introduce such intensity to the space, however I found it attempted to seriously dissuade me from visiting the rest of the exhibition.
With Martin's work, I tend to find his intent more interesting than the actual paintings. His engagement with landscapes -- both physical as well as mental -- is intriguing. The intentional cacophony of disjointed styles, colors, and shapes all create atmosphere and mood, but sometimes I find it more interesting to read about his works than to actually experience them. Often it is only when they are juxtaposed with one another that any kind of interest in generated. Individually, they can be a little one dimensional in my opinion.
If interest is achieved through exhibition, then, should these works be seen as individual pieces?
If it is through a disjointed perspective that an understanding or dialogue is created, than I suppose you could say that the entire exhibition is really about creating a harmony.
I started out thinking that the Martin exhibition was unsuccessful. But now I am wondering if it actually was successful -- I am still thinking about it. How can you judge an exhibition as successful? Is it the lasting impression on a visitor, regardless if positive or negative?
With this exhibition, I think that it is successful, in a backwards way. Kind of like the canvases themselves -- they are almost so wrong that it is right. The exhibition is the same way -- it is so disjointed that it actually makes sense.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Art All Night DC 2011
Over the weekend, I attended Art All Night, an evening in which public and private art spaces are open to the public into the wee hours of the morning. This "mash-up of cultural experiences" consisted of indoor and outdoor spaces, media works, public performances, and street art.
It was definitely more of a cultural experience -- really, more of an event than a forum for viewing art work. It reminded me of the monthly downtown art walks in Los Angeles. Hordes of people attend, there are vendors lined up along the curb selling everything from charcoal drawings to junky jewelry, and of course the ever-popular food trucks are always present. Regardless, Art All Night encouraged people to "gallery-hop" throughout the Chinatown and Shaw neighborhoods. It was definitely an opportunity for me to visit many of the galleries in DC that I had heard a lot about, but had not visited myself.
Courtesy of Jeannette Casserly
Later in the evening I stopped by Touchstone Gallery, and saw works by the artist Mary H. Lynch. What was interesting about her artwork was her break from the traditional rectangular canvas. She explores painting through a myriad of canvas shapes, often times installed in groups, transforming the canvases into more of sculpture. Her exploration of textures, shapes, and patterns is fascinating, as it turns not only the canvases, but the walls they occupy, into a visual landscape.
I visited about 7 galleries in all, and when I headed for the metro at around midnight, the crowds were only growing. I think that events such as Art All Night encourage a younger demographic to visit art galleries, and to encourage a dialogue amongst those galleries. The public art and the street artists were particularly popular, but since the event continued until 3am, I am sure that all of the galleries were well attended. Even though it turned into more of "place to be seen", instead of a place to see art, the intentions were there and I personally enjoyed the experience and valued the opportunity to visit some of the galleries.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Art Preview: The Two Warhol Exhibitions
Over the past week, various Washington, D.C. publications have featured fall arts previews. I found the Washington City Paper's "State of the Arts" insert a wonderful overview of the area's upcoming exhibitions -- if you haven't picked up a copy yet, make sure you do before Thursday!
What struck me was the upcoming openings of two related exhibitions: "Warhol: Headlines" at the National Gallery of Art, and "Andy Warhol: Shadows" at the Hirshhorn. Although I initially thought that these simultaneous exhibitions would create a conflict between the institutions, I now think that they will instead provide an interesting dialogue.
"Warhol: Headlines"focuses on his tabloid-inspired pieces, his fascination with celebrity, and appropriation. In typical Warhol fashion, the exhibition will ask the viewer to analyze the differences between commonplace tabloids and high art. Through the display of over 80 works, the exhibition promises to explore Warhol's fascination with sensationalism. The mediums range from paintings, drawings, prints, photography and sculpture to film, video and television. The NGA bills the exhibition as an exploration of the theme of headlines and the connection to Warhol's fascination with celebrity and current events, to name a few.
The Hirshhorn's exhibition, "Andy Warhol: Shadows", focuses on the later years of his career. Over one hundred silkscreens and hand-painted canvases will be on display. This exhibition's installation particularly piques my interest. The large-scale panels will be installed edge-to-edge in an uninterrupted flow around the curving walls of the museum. The Hirshhorn insists that the installation will provide a unique chance to see the work in its entirety, all 450 feet of it.
Unlike the NGA's exhibition, which will span Warhol's career and engage with a variety of themes and mediums, "Andy Warhol: Shadows" provides a narrowed scope of the artist's works. By focusing on the last decade of Warhol's life, I hope that an interesting juxtaposition to the NGA exhibition is created.
Both exhibitions are opening on September 25, 2011. I plan to visit both exhibitions the following weekend, at which time I can see for myself if the exhibitions create a dialogue, or if they simply overlap and provide duplicitous approaches to Warhol's works. Based on the two press releases, it looks like they are aiming for the former.
It raises the question in my mind, though, if museums have an obligation to work with other, potentially competing, museums in favor of the visitor experience. Or, in their self-interest, should museums focus on the quality of their exhibition and amp up their advertising?
What struck me was the upcoming openings of two related exhibitions: "Warhol: Headlines" at the National Gallery of Art, and "Andy Warhol: Shadows" at the Hirshhorn. Although I initially thought that these simultaneous exhibitions would create a conflict between the institutions, I now think that they will instead provide an interesting dialogue.
"Warhol: Headlines"focuses on his tabloid-inspired pieces, his fascination with celebrity, and appropriation. In typical Warhol fashion, the exhibition will ask the viewer to analyze the differences between commonplace tabloids and high art. Through the display of over 80 works, the exhibition promises to explore Warhol's fascination with sensationalism. The mediums range from paintings, drawings, prints, photography and sculpture to film, video and television. The NGA bills the exhibition as an exploration of the theme of headlines and the connection to Warhol's fascination with celebrity and current events, to name a few.
The Hirshhorn's exhibition, "Andy Warhol: Shadows", focuses on the later years of his career. Over one hundred silkscreens and hand-painted canvases will be on display. This exhibition's installation particularly piques my interest. The large-scale panels will be installed edge-to-edge in an uninterrupted flow around the curving walls of the museum. The Hirshhorn insists that the installation will provide a unique chance to see the work in its entirety, all 450 feet of it.
Unlike the NGA's exhibition, which will span Warhol's career and engage with a variety of themes and mediums, "Andy Warhol: Shadows" provides a narrowed scope of the artist's works. By focusing on the last decade of Warhol's life, I hope that an interesting juxtaposition to the NGA exhibition is created.
Both exhibitions are opening on September 25, 2011. I plan to visit both exhibitions the following weekend, at which time I can see for myself if the exhibitions create a dialogue, or if they simply overlap and provide duplicitous approaches to Warhol's works. Based on the two press releases, it looks like they are aiming for the former.
It raises the question in my mind, though, if museums have an obligation to work with other, potentially competing, museums in favor of the visitor experience. Or, in their self-interest, should museums focus on the quality of their exhibition and amp up their advertising?
Monday, September 12, 2011
Can Street Art Be Institutionalized?
The word “graffiti” conjures a lot of things in my mind: vivid colors, mysterious words and names, and most importantly, the chance of getting caught. To me, one of the crucial characteristics in defining graffiti is its implicit illegal nature. Part of what inspires awe when you see a large mural is the question of “how?”. How did that street artist create something so complex under the pressure of possible arrest? How did no one see them creating these masterpieces?
Graffiti is becoming more and more accepted within mainstream society and within the art community. Artists such as Banksy, local headliners such as Borf, and exhibitions such as MOCA’s highest attended (well, second highest) exhibition, "Art in the Streets", and the National Portrait Gallery’s 2008 show, "Recognize!", have all garnered the interest of the public and the art community. But it leads to questions about how to integrate something so inherently outside of the mainstream into the institution. More and more graffiti artists have become not only accepted, but embraced by many galleries, museums and auction houses. But how can you buy and sell something that is meant to grace the side of subway cars and buildings?
Last week's Washington City Paper featured a story, "Tagging Rights: Nonprofits, art galleries, and party planners are feting D.C.'s graffiti scene. Have they also tamed it?". They discuss a local organization, MuralsDC, a group that strives to integrate street artists into mainstream society. They are trying to redirect these artists towards legal endeavors. Artists attend classes where they can hone their craft, and are encouraged to explore careers in the fine arts. They also participate in legal means of street art. Pre-approved areas are converted into public murals that represent the community. But what happens when illegal works are replaced with these collaborative murals? Can street art that has been approved by the community still be considered “graffiti”?
Graffiti’s inherent anti-authoritarian stance has been changing for the past 10 years, at least. It is now accepted, praised, and desired. But are these so-called “graffiti ambassadors” helping the medium, or just borrowing the aesthetic?
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Marting Luther King, Jr. National Memorial: Paraphrasing vs. Pure Fiction
Washington, DC has welcomed a new memorial, but not without controversy.
The Washington DC Martin Luther King Kr. National Memorial is meant, “to commemorate the life and work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. by leading a collaborative funding, design, and construction process in the creation of a memorial to honor his national and international contributions to world peace through non-violent social change” - www.mlkmemorial.org
The memorial’s main statue features two large stones with a single wedge protruding from the center, from which King’s form emerges.
In addition to the depiction of King, the statue features two inscriptions. The first reads, “Out of a mountain of despair, a stone of hope”, derived from his famous “I Have a Dream” speech.
The second inscription on the north side of the monument has caused quite a bit of controversy. It reads, “I was a drum major for justice, peace and righteousness”. This inscription is a paraphrase from King’s drum major sermon of 1968. The original from which the paraphrase is derived is:
Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for justice, say that I was a drum major for peace. I was a drum major for righteousness. And all of the other shallow things will not matter.
The decision on behalf of the memorial’s sculptor, Lei Yixin and the inscription carver, Nick Benson, to keep the inscription brief and succinct has been met with adversity from Maya Angelou (she thinks it makes King sound like “an arrogant twit”), the Washington Post’s Friday editorial, "The MLK Jr. memorial's monumental misquote , and the Post’s Rachel Manteuffel's article, "Martin Luther King a drum major? I don't think so."
Ed Jackson Jr., the executive architect fort he new memorial, says that he stands by the project’s decision to use the paraphrase and there are not plans to change it due to the recent complaints.
This brings to my mind several questions:
- Who has the authority to paraphrase?
- Where is the line between paraphrasing and changing the meaning altogether, and was that the case here?
- In light of a public outcry, who has the authority to make a significant change to a public monument?
To me, I believe that the paraphrase strayed too far from the original speech and mutated the meaning. To ascribe this phrase and all of its innuendo to Martin Luther King, Jr. is unwarranted.
However, I do not think that you can change a monument, a public work of art, without the artist or architect’s consent. Since the design team is remaining firm in their decision, I think that at this point that matter will have to be laid to rest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)