MoMA
Art is one term, which should never be used as loosely as one noted museum would have you believe. At the very least art should have the perception of effort or at least great thought and consideration. There is simple art and then there is non-existent work given outlandish meaning.
Modern art has an inherently unconventional connotation. That is to be expected. To this effect, the Museum of Modern Art does not disappoint. All forms and materials are present in its hallowed halls. From the soft, rubbery material used to construct a drooping model of an old time telephone to the wiry frame used to construct some manner of animal, variety is not only present but emphasized. This is not to mention the golden luster of the metal used to construct a seemingly soldier like figure on the latter floors. Then, there are of course the more pronounced pieces, so viewed due to their acclaim. Among them was Picasso’s Pregnant Woman constructed of wood and ceramics, and purposefully focusing on disproportionate shapes in the woman’s figure, and at the same time simplicity of form.
There were also those that attempted to take simple and mundane items and communicate, through them, societal aspects. Among these were the Campbell’s soup cans of Andy Warhol. This piece seemed to represent the variety in New York Culture, and the integral component it was to our identity, as soup represents an integral part of our diet. His picture of Marylyn Monroe, though simple, does allow us to remember a noted actress during the time of the city’s growing prestige.
The pieces depicting the slavery and battles of the Civil War were particularly noticeable, including the signs and captions made for the runaway slaves. The words may seem new age, and there is reason for this. These are actually quotations from the artist’s friends when asked how they would write a lost poster for him were he ever to be. The others depicted a shadow of a slave, which overshadowed a battle or occurrence that took place during the war, perhaps representing the overshadowing theme of slavery during the time.
There were saving graces bordering on classical such as Van Gough’s well known The Starry Night and Cezanne’s still lives. Starry night is a work of true genius with its color scheme and texture put into an imaginative landscape. The old age feel of the building and naturalness of the stars do not clash but work in harmony to create a feeling of serenity. The still lives make good use of color and contrast, creating depth and giving it it’s realistic “feel.” Another famous piece was Picasso’s Les Demoiselles d’ Avignon. This piece drew on many different cultures and techniques to create a very individualistic form, making it known why Picasso is said to have reinvigorated and revolutionized the art world.
The one piece I will never forget and the few others that are best forgotten are the blank canvases of singular color and those with a few simple lines of color. Included in this group should be the pink light filament placed in a very particular corner. Such pieces seem to be representative many others in the museum and this is a sad fact. Art is more than thinking. It is doing. It is being. It is communicating. Meaning should not be as blank and empty as….
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:01 pm
I totally agree with you. Moma’s a great museum. Especially, they hold Van Gogh’s original works. Only for that, it’s totally worth going there.
September 22nd, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Wow, Moma seems a pretty cool place to be at. From what I have seen in our last couple of IDC’s meetings, I think I am now more prepared to appreciate modern art. Honestly, I always think of art in the conventional way (the MET way). When you mentioned Picasso and Van Gogh, I was actually surprised; I did not know they were considered to be modern artists (maybe it’s only my ignorance).
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:26 pm
“Art is more than thinking. It is doing. It is being. It is communicating. Meaning should not be as blank and empty as….”
I think this is truly a great, concise statement, not only to conclude your review but in general. You have found a way to expand the reader’s perception of art in general, and suggest a way to appreciate especially modern art which we often find so debateable.
I am very intrigued by your review. In fact, I will probably visit the MoMA as part of the next review because I want to see for myself how the modern art displayed in this museum will impress me.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Like you I did not understand, or even come close to undestanding, the seemingly blank pieces of art. Can anyone give their perspective? Perhaps I am looking blindly because in looking at them I saw and felt nothing.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Dan, people have written long books on this question but I will try to summarize as best I can and maybe that will help you understand if not appreciate the ‘blank’ works.
Some painters are interested in representing the world (ie, figures, landscapes, still lives, etc. – recognizable shapes). Others work with abstraction (ie, they paint shapes, colors, etc. that are not supposed to be recognizable). The abstract painters are working with the idea that the painting only represents ITSELF not something beyond itself. That doesn’t mean an abstract painting doesn’t express larger ideas but it doesn’t base those ideas on a presumed connection between the painting and some other reality it represents.
You could say that the abstract painters are making paintings about painting, while the representational painters are making paintings about some other recognizable reality. This is a gross simplification but whatever.
So the all-white paintings might be the painter’s attempt to get you to look at painting (paint, canvas, brushstrokes) without the distraction of representation.
There is definitely an in-your-face quality to these paintings especially when they first started appearing in the early 20th century. But by now these are pretty common and accepted in contemporary art and art historical canons.
By the way an all-white painting might also suggest something about purity (in the West, white usually indicates purity) or death (in the East white is often associated with death). And it can make those suggestions without having to show a picture of an angel (or whatever representation of purity you prefer) or a dead body (or whatever representation of death you prefer). So you might say, “well aren’t these abstract paintings also representational – they are communicating in a symbolic language just like the traditional representational painters are” and you would be right!
Well I hope that helped.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Siwen, the term ‘Modern Art’ usually refers to a specific time period in Western art beginning with the Impressionists (Manet, Degas, Cezanne, Monet) and the Expressionists (Van Gogh, and others) in the late 19th century. It goes through the 1950s, including works by the cubists (Picasso, Braque), the surrealists (Dali, Breton, Man Ray), the Dada-ists (Duchamp, Schwitters), the Abstract Expressionists (Pollock, Rothko). It is confusing because the word modern has many meanings but the term Modern Art in art history refers to a specific time period and art movement.
After the late 1950s things started to change and the period from then til now is sometimes referred to as the Post-Modernist period but most often it is referred to as contemporary art. When someone has a good name for it, it probably means that its time has passed and so it can be named something specific. Until then ‘contemporary’ refers to whatever is happening in this moment.
The Museum of Modern Art was founded in the early 1950s specifically to present Modernist work. It has expanded its field since then to include contemporary work as well.
So, while Picasso and Van Gogh are not contemporary artists, their work is very much part of ‘Modern Art’.
Hope that helps.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:01 am
Hmm interesting, so some of these “blank” paintings are made to be looked at how the painting is not what it evokes. Sort of like you are looking at the details of how it was painted. Although I may not agree with that idea, it does make sense to be considered art.
September 26th, 2007 at 9:04 am
Dan, yes, you have summarized it well. The “blank” paintings certainly could be evocative, or provocative, but their power would come from the physical and visual reality of the painting itself – not because of the painting’s connection to some other, imagined, reality. In theory the abstract painting is a real object not a symbolic object.
There is also an interesting shift that happens with representational vs. abstract work in terms of the space of the museum itself. In a representational piece (such as a traditional landscape) you might look at it and feel transported from the museum space into the imaginary space of the painting. But in an abstract piece you see the work as existing in the real space of the museum – the here-and-now, not the imaginary.
I think it would be fair to say that ALL paintings (and most other arts too) have elements of abstraction and elements of representation in them. Even the most ‘realistic’ painting is still brushstrokes on a canvas hanging on a wall! But some emphasize the abstract qualities more strongly than others.