The Politics of Art & Authenticity

I am pretty open to most things. I believe that one has the right to be expressive in whatever way he/she wants. But just because you find yourself to be expressive doesn’t mean it’s art.

The New Photography 2012 exhibit at MoMA was disappointing. I mean, I’ve come to understand that there are many forms of art, but you cannot scrapbook and call it photography. It just doesn’t happen.  A collage is a collage, a photograph is a photograph. You don’t mix both and still call it a photograph.

From elementary to high school, going to art exhibits felt more of a obligation, or a summer assignment rather than something which I voluntarily do for the pure purpose of appreciating art. I would definitely take advantage of the opportunity and try obtaining information, but everything felt so superficial. Since then, I just thought I didn’t like art exhibits as much as the other art performances.

Although part of school activity, the museum experiences in Macaulay brought back my interest in the arts and gave me an opportunity to approach it in a new light and to really appreciate it as a art piece rather than an exam material that’s going to be on the test.

As opposed to the experience at the Brooklyn Museum, at MoMa, knowing that I would not have enough time to appreciate all the art pieces, I was busy taking photos. Trying to develop my own view and memory.

It was definitely an jaw dropping experience to see the actual sketch and the original of “The Scream” and several famous art pieces by van Gogh, Picasso, Kandinsky and Mondrian. However, due to the familiarity of the piece, (and possibly it was very crowded), I somehow did not feel very passionate in appreciating those pieces. Instead, my attention was turned towards their less famous works.

Also. What I found very amusing was how I could use my camera to shape the experience of a certain art work through seeing in different angles.

While I was having fun taking photos, I also realized how important it is to actually go to galleries to have a whole experience of the piece rather than thinking that one knows about the piece by just studying in textbooks. Anyways, I was so caught up by this “seeing it through different angle” I ended up taking more photos of the building itself than the actual art pieces.

See how the people standing in front of the picture are reflected in the art piece? (quite literally)

As I came out of the place, my endeavors did not stop. Yet I found this gem.

“A Book is a gateway to another world” –Anonymous

If I have enough time, I would definitely like to go once more and truly appreciate the pictures. But for now, I am satisfied in what I found as well.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/10/24/arts/artsspecial/24SCREAM/24SCREAM-jumbo.jpg

I love going to the MoMa. It is filled with amazing artwork and this time, the museum had Edvard Munch’s The Scream. The famous artwork was in my presence that day I visited the MoMa. In the artwork, it seemed like the person was in a nightmare. It reminds me of Home Alone, when Macaulay Culkin screams with his hands on his cheeks at the sight of a spider in his bathroom.  I could relate to this because my life has been so complex and overwhelmed with the immense amount of work that I have to do and all I want to do is scream and let all the stress evacuate my system. It is amazing how simple this painting is with the use of oil pastels, whose colors flow throughout the artwork.

I also got a chance to see MoMa’s New Photography 2012 that represented five artists and their distinct techniques in their art. There were only a couple out of those artists that stood out to me. In almost all of Michele Abeles work, she has bodies parts incorporated into her work, some of them weren’t rated PG. But we are all mature adults here! Birdhead used Black and White still-life photography. My favorite one would be this one. I think it was because the bike was incorporated into the photograph, which add more depth to the artwork.

Going to the MoMa to see these exhibits was an exciting experience. I love going to museums mainly because I get to spend my time  looking and appreciating  at beautiful and uniques pieces of art.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f4/The_Scream.jpg/220px-The_Scream.jpg

The Scream exhibit at MoMa is quite a sight. From the original draft of the famous painting to different visions of the meaning of the Scream, the exhibit held everything for original art enthusiasts. I enjoyed the different paintings and some of the sculptures that were shown in the connected rooms as well, especially the paintings of birds that were derived from photographs, these painting looked so real I actually took them for real photographs but they were drawings. Some of the other large paintings were quite beautiful, looking like huge flowers with lots of different colors and textures within the painting. Then we walked into the New Photography exhibit. I’m not sure how to describe the things that I saw, I think the best word would be strange, and even that’s a huge understatement. I saw many “modern” things that I would prefer not to describe or say for the sanctity of this blog. I understand that modern art is very progressive and “out there,” but this was just too much for me. I like the paintings and photographs that teach you something or show you some iconic scene in history, but photographs of pe…….sexual body parts, just aren’t my thing. I guess I’m just old school about my art. Every one has different tastes and opinions, my palate is just too sensitive for that kind of stuff.

I was blown away by the architecture of the Museum of Modern Arts. I was curiously browsing from room to room admiring the beautiful works of art. Then I texted my friend asking her if there was anything I should see, and she told me to look at paintings by Edvard Munch. This one caught my eye, and I am glad I texted my friend because I probably wouldn’t have seen this painting. The painting is amazing! The contrast of colors creates a wonderful contrast between land and the river beneath the bridge. I like how Munch makes the picture grainy instead of the more smooth look that pictures have. It kind of looks like a blend of painting and pastel. So many emotions can be felt from this painting like the horror the character has on his or her face. I like how Moma juxtaposes traditional paintings like The Scream with more traditional paintings from artists like Picasso and Van Gogh. This is more abstract art, while Leonardo da Vinci’s is more of a traditional portrait. This juxaposition shows how art changes over time along with styles. It also shows modern artists can create wonderful art as the big name traditional artists. I can sense the person’s fear of death and angst.

The photography was fantastic, but I was overwhelmed by the wide spectrum of photography and the number of pieces. I am very interested in photography, and I enjoyed seeing how each artist expressed their feelings and ideas through their photography. The contrast and black and white images added to the emotion the photographers felt because pain and sadness can be conveyed through darkness like the picture we saw at the end. It challenges my notion of photography beacuse I thought photography could just be pictures of people or places, but it can take many forms. It speaks to what a photo means in the twentieth century by exploring the concepts of modern photos and diferent ways artists can express themselves. I can’t wait to go back to MOMA!

Image Source: http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/4f43a80eecad04164c00001a-400-300/edvard-munch-the-scream.jpg

Last Thursday I went to The Museum of Modern Art to see The Scream, by artist Edvard Munch.  I was very excited for this day to come, because I know how world-renowned the painting is and it has been used in so many television shows and films.  It was almost disappointing when I realized it wasn’t the oil-painting version that many people know.  Instead I viewed the pastel version, which almost looked like a 5 year old had drawn it.  How was it that this pastel drawing was next to all these other amazing artists like Picasso and Vincent Van Gogh? I was surprised that people would consider this art.

But then I looked at it a second time.  I saw all the rough and distinct marks that Munch had made, and it shows the confidence in his work.  It also creates more emotion when you see the hard strokes of the lines.  It made me realize that sometimes the best art can be in the simplest of forms, but still convey a strong idea.  The saying “less is more” is actually very true.

http://www.sothebys.com/content/sothebys/en/sales-series/2012/impressionist-modern-art-evening-sale/overview/_jcr_content/leftpar/image.img.jpg/1329735207815.jpg

The other exhibit that I really enjoyed was the photography.  I have worked with film photography for a few years, so I understand the time and effort that goes into some of the photos.  It isn’t just pressing down the shutter and printing out the photo.  It’s making sure the lighting is just right, and the exposure is on the correct setting or else the photo won’t be accurate.

I really liked Birdhead’s work, which was a collaboration between Ji Weiyu and Song Tao, all about urban life in Shanghai.  What I really enjoyed about it was it reminded me of the film work that I used to do.  Each photo had a good composition, but together formed a strong piece of work.  I also couldn’t get over how large some of the photos were.  The technical process to make a large print is very difficult and a large tub is needed to develop the photo.  Overall, I was very impressed.

My trip to MOMA left me wanting to see more of the museum, and I will definitely be going back soon!

Museums are of my favorite places to visit.  What one finds in a museum is immortal.  The artifacts seem to transcend the ages.  Wen I see a piece of art I either like it or I don’t.  There seems to never be any in between.

There were many unique pieces in this museum.  The ones that are still fresh in my mind are “The Scream”, “Starry Night”, and Frieda Kahlo‘s painting. These three timeless pieces are extremely famous.  They are shown in textbooks, have parodies made of them, and are often the first things that come to mind when one of these painters are mentioned.

When I saw “Scream”, the first thing I thought of was an article I had recently read about it and all the parody paintings that had been placed around the article.  Aside from this thought, I genuinely did not feel any genuine excitement over seeing this piece of art.  I feel as if the media has desensitized me to it.  Having seen it in movies, cartoons, replicas, I felt as if I were just seeing another.

However it felt as if none of the other paintings compared to “Scream” and the other famous works by the renowned artists.  You only saw crowds gathered around the more recognized ones which, I suppose, is understandable to some extent.

The photography section seemed short though it was filled with tons of pieces.  I have never been very interested in photography so I was unfamiliar with most of the artists.  I regarded many as interesting and was left wondering about others.  There was one piece that made me wonder how it got into the museum.  It was in a large glass display case against the wall.  If I remember correctly the background was cut in half, the top was white and the bottom was gray.  At the very center were two pictures, one of a bright sky blue sky and another of a darker colored sky.  I’m going from memory however it was plain, ordinary.  It felt like anyone could have done it.

What stood out to me most in the photography section could be found in the part we viewed before the exit.  There was the face of a man who seemed like he was screaming, in some sort of pain, or just so moved by something.  His face was scrunched up, one could see his age lines.  This one photograph portrayed so much emotion yet it was black and white and quite possibly taken years ago.  The feeling I got from this one photo made me think that a picture really is worth a thousand words.

Source:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f4/The_Scream.jpg/220px-The_Scream.jpg

I was really pleased with the art I saw at the MoMA, as it redefined the way I typically think of modern art. It was more unconventional than traditional art, but not ridiculous or childish in any way.  A great example of how purposeful and effective modern art can be is Edvard Munch’s “The Scream.” This painting was done around the turn of the 20th century, and it was meant to symblize the confusion and unsettled feeling of many people during that time. To me, “The Scream” is such a powerful image because it manages to capture not a person or an event, but a nameless feeling. The figure who is screaming does not look human, because he’s not. He is the personification of an emotional experience. Many of us have had the feeling of being stifled and not knowing where to turn. It seems like the only way we can manage is to let our feelings out into the open, so they don’t weigh us down any longer. The two men on the bridge seem rather purposeless and are mindlessly gazing off into the distance, not knowing what to do with themselves. Though they look to be in control of themselves, the silently screaming figure shows what they are really feeling inside. What many people feel inside. The chasm between how we feel and how we appear is often a product of the need to appear “normal” and in control at all times.

My favorite piece of artwork at the MoMA was in the photography exhibit. Photography is perhaps the most modern of all modern art, as it uses technology (like photoshop) which was unimaginable even 30 years ago. From what I saw, it seemed that most the photos were “tampered with” and not something that could’ve been created that long ago. Photography is just as legitimate as other forms of art, because the artist is still using a medium to create feelings and reactions in viewers. Though I didn’t connect with everything I saw (ahem…I’m talking to you: photo of hand with dead bug on it, next to plant), my favorite piece was a collage of small photos of the same location as it turned from night to day

I was fully satisfied with our trip to the museum during class time, so I nearly forgot about the dance planned for later that evening…

Let me start off by formally announcing, now that I have an actual experience to back me up, that modern dance is not my cup of tea. Though I recognize the athleticism and skill that the dancers obviously have, that doesn’t mean that that they were, in fact, dancing. I’m not sure of the formal definition of dance, but I believe that unsynchronized movements, without musical accompaniment, should not be falsely advertised as a dance. Though I was pleased to see dancers with all different body types, I still did not enjoy their moves or the incomprehensible stories they were ostensibly trying to tell. Call me a traditionalist, but it should not have been called a dance, and that’s that. I will never subject myself to another modern dance, if I can help it. I’d rather see seven more operas. I also felt bad for the dancers, because I heard several people laughing at the things they were doing onstage. People usually laugh at the unexpected, and because I assume most people were expecting some dancing to be involved, it’s no wonder that they found it humorous.

While modern art is a brilliant spin on art , modern dance is not dancing. Ballet next time, anyone?

This has been the second time I’ve been to MoMA in the past year or so, so I’m ready to accept my “Cultured & Sophisticated Merit Badge.”

I’m not going to talk about “The Scream” that much because I’m a rebel, it didn’t capture my interests like I thought it would. Frankly, it looked like a bunch of colorful, curvy lines on that eggshell-tinted paper the teachers gave you to color on in fifth-grade art class. Don’t get me wrong, after I stood there and looked at the picture for a little bit, I really did appreciate the bizarreness of it. The vividness of the lines of color, especially on the boardwalk, had an otherworldly hue to them, and the sheer mystery that is “The Scream” is something everyone should admire.

I took this picture. Try to steal it and I’ll see you on Judge Judy. (Also it keeps uploading sideways, so please turn your laptop 90 degrees clockwise to get the full effect.)

The painting that truly captured my interest was the first in a series of four paintings that were commissioned to be hung in the foyer of some rich guy’s Park Avenue apartment. The works, painted by Vasily Kandinsky, are just colorful images of nothing in particular. The plaque next to them stated that Kandinsky may have had a landscape in mind when painting them, and while I managed to pick out what could be a park walkway, or a lighthouse on a beach, the painting is inherently void of anything realistic. (Abstract paintings usually are.) I don’t know, it’s just a really great painting.

The “New Photography” exhibit was more interesting than I thought it would be. I went in thinking it’d be just a bunch of pictures of nature or technology in the same style as Tumblr hipsters, but it was more “really depressing Vietnam War” images. I assume the whole “New” portion of the exhibit was to emphasize the changing role of photography in our modern, technologically-advanced times; such as the series of typically normal photos taken from the 1970s, but then a gruesome image of the War is added in as the picture hanging on the wall, or behind the curtain that the woman has so carelessly vacuumed up. The juxtaposition of these two types of photos from the past, brought together with today’s technology is telling. Those two photos showed two distinctly different parts of the same time, but it’s by today’s experiments do we finally get a fuller picture of truth.

The same idea held true for the next series of photographs taken by Harrell Fletcher. Fletcher went to a Vietnam War museum in Ho Chi Minh City and took pictures of pictures shown there. The photos in that

I took this too, so it’s a photo of a photo of a photo.

museum weren’t those of American soldiers bravely fighting, but instead it was filled with images of women and children burned by chemical bombs – what Vietnam saw. Fletcher took these pictures of pictures to expose truth, which is what I believe is photography is meant to be: a truth-teller.

I love photography. I don’t take pictures too often, but nevertheless I do enjoy it. The photograph tells a story unbeknownst to the naked eye. The camera captures a deeper aspect of the “picture that otherwise could not be seen. Photography often seems like a snapped picture of random objects put together, but of course there is more to what meets the eye.

Sometimes, as in some modern photography, it seems like the photographer just snapped a picture of a random object. But I think modernity allows for personal interpretation and expression. Perhaps, and most probably, this photo expresses something deeper for the photographer.

MOMA’s New Photography 2012 exhibit is great. I love the personality, the character, and the creativity behind the photos. Each photo is definitely worth a thousand words.