Wednesday, September 3, 2008

Top Five...

...things I saw at the Metropolitan Museum of Art this weekend.

Don't look at my other ear.

This piece is cool because Vinnie painted a potato-peelin' peasant on the other side of the canvas.

4. John Singer Sargent's "Madame X" (1883-4)


This was originally painted with one of Madame X's shoulder straps falling down, but "the man" made poor John repaint it. Fortunately, this sexy lady still caused a scandal at the Paris Salon.

3. Jackson Pollock's "Autumn Rhythm (Number 30)" (1950)

Don't try this at home.

I had a very interesting conversation about Pollock with a co-worker today. We were discussing the need to view modern and "non-modern" art in different ways.

For example - the viewer appreciates the skill and technique of a Renaissance master, but understands that the artist was commissioned and under strict guidelines, probably painting religious figures or nobility and therefore - maybe - lacking a little self-expression.

Likewise, the viewer appreciates the self-expression and artistic statement of the modern artist, whether or not he/she has the same level of specific technique that the old masters did (we're looking at you, Pollock).

It's easy to say that Pollock's no big deal - "I could paint that." But Pollock painted it first, and in 1950, no less. Did you do that??


Degas was apparently so invested in capturing this dancer's likeness that he sculpted her nude. Dude, she's FOURTEEN!

UPDATE: check out this New York Times article about Degas at the Met.

1. Alexander Calder's "Mobile" (1942)


Alexander Calder invented the mobile. He INVENTED it. Sleepy babies everywhere owe Calder a huge debt of gratitude for inventing a wire with little pieces attached to it that hangs from the ceiling.

2 comments:

Unknown said...

So, babies and toddlers before 1950 didn't just splash paint all over paper? Really? Oh, they must have started doing that AFTER they saw Jackson Pollack doing it. Your chicken and egg theory is crap. :-)

The Ex-Gifted Child said...

Thanks Jesse! This is the kind of intellectual debate I miss with you...

My theory still stands though. Kids may have been splashing paint on paper for years, but no adult had done it on purpose and called it ART.