The Politics of Art & Authenticity

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

Usually I never know what exactly we’re doing or where we’re going or what we’re seeing for these productions because I like it to be a surprise. I like surprises. So I knew I was coming to the MoMa, and after accidentally walking into the restaurant and being redirected three doors down, I was excited to be there. I thought, “Well, I’ve never been to this museum before. Modern art can’t be too terrible, right?”

I’m always impressed by photography and how beautiful it can make such ordinary things look. I never know how the photographer decides what angle to snap a shot, or what to take a picture of. Some of my favorite pictures were the ones that looked like one face but they were actually a combination of three overlapping faces. It took me a few seconds to pick up on this but when I did I was amazed. How did they do that? Stevie tried to explain it to me and although it sounds simple, it’s something I didn’t know existed. I was very literally taken aback by it. I appreciate the creativity behind photographs so I definitely enjoyed this gallery.

Then, I remember trying to check in my bag and Professor Davis explaining to me that The Scream by Edvard Munch was being loaned to the MoMa for a few months and it was just one of those paintings you have to see. Naturally, I was expecting some crazy, elaborate, I don’t even know. Then there was a line to get into the gallery and I was pretty pumped. I was thinking, “This has to be awesome, no?” And then I saw it. Usually at this point in my blog post I start complaining about disappointment but I actually wasn’t as disappointed as I thought I would be.

My first reaction was to think, “What…This looks like it was drawn with crayons. This is what I came to see? A crayon drawing? Oh.” But then, in an attempt to be a cultured member of society, I actually stopped and thought about it for a little while. And then I realized, hey, this is kind of interesting. I even squinted to read the little excerpt on the wall about the painting. The contrast between all the bright oranges and yellows and the darker screaming figure with the look of horror on his face made me think of devastation in the midst of beauty. Thinking about it right now, it reminds me of being out in Rockaway this weekend. The beach has a peaceful, beautiful quality to it. I was standing on the beach, looking out into the ocean, momentarily entranced by it’s beauty only to snap back to reality and look around to see a destroyed boardwalk, wiped out houses, and devastated looks on homeowner’s faces. It was beauty in the midst of devastation. Just like the screaming figure with a beautiful sunset going on around it.

This is my favorite quality of art. It is subject to a hundred different interpretations by a hundred million people. It means something else to someone else and there is no right or wrong answer; only new perspectives.

I don’t know what the deal is with “modern” photography. I don’t want to unfairly categorize “modern” as one entire pool of indiscernable groups, but there is one, very large sect that confuses me. What’s with all the pictures of naked people? I feel as if the image of a bare human body is the easy way out for these photographers. They are trying to capture something provocative– visually, emotionally, and intellectually. Orwell describes poor writing as “reaching for ready-made phrases.” These represent the “ready-made” photograph– nakedness. Removing layers of clothing invokes ideas of getting to the truth while nakedness can also be pure, un-doctored. Sometimes these photographers will take the idea in the other direction making their work straight crass. As I walked through the New Photography Exhibit, people were staring at these photos with furrowed brows, allowing others to know they are “getting it.” Bullshit. Spend time looking at the collages of people from all over the world, or something like the photo of a bottle which “survived” an atomic bomb blast. Spend time looking at something which delivers real emotion, not something which is unoriginally playing on the relationship between human desire and purity. There probably are quality, original, provocative pieces which employ the image of the human body in the exhibit, but I unfortunately missed them in the sea of the “ready-made.”

courtesy of MOMA

Last week we went to see Edward Munch’s The Scream. I was looking at the picture, asking myself, what is it about this picture? What makes this so perennial? Why is this viewed over and over again throughout the years?

Maybe people can identify themselves with this bald-headed, open-mouthed man standing on this bridge over the water. It could be a calm, serene painting, maybe something Emerson or Thoreau could describe in terms of nature, but Munch painted a swirling storm and a brightly colored bridge with artificial colors. I think his use of colors is what makes this picture tick. The yellow pool in the sea, the red and pink and purple tones in the bridge, and the gauntly tone of the person all make this picture scream. It doesn’t really matter if people live in the nineteenth, twentieth, or twenty-first century. We could be in the middle of a hurricane, or just living in total peace. As Much himself wrote, “I sensed an infinite scream passing through nature.” Sometimes, all we want to do is scream.

We also saw the New Photography exhibit. Professor Davis asked us what makes something a 21st century picture. I happen to love photography. I have a DSLR camera and I love taking pictures of everything. I didn’t really like this exhibit so much. Some pictures were really cool, but others seemed really mundane and there was nothing special about them that struck me. I think today, in the 21st century, the term “artist” demands a lot less talent than it used to. Today, people can post videos of themselves singing and dancing and become an instant YouTube star. Today, people can digitalize their faces and voices and pictures and videos. There is more room for creativity, but more of the computer’s work and less of the artist’s. I was unimpressed with most of the pictures I saw. I didn’t like the collages, where it looked like the artist just pasted a bunch of unrelated-looking people or pictures together. The pictures didn’t really speak to me. There were pictures of regular, everyday scenes, like garbage, people smoking, and shots of New York city. These pictures didn’t really have anything special about them. I could walk to school one day and see the exact same scene outside. Today, if people take pictures with a digital camera and edit them on a computer, they can make them so “artsy.” I think this term is so hackneyed in today’s world, and in a sense, rather than the photographer, the cameras and computers have become the artist. After visiting this exhibit, I was a little disillusioned with what today’s photography may have become. People can just take pictures of anything, edit them a little, and call this art.

Later, we went to the Barnard Fall Project. I wasn’t such a huge fan of this performance. In the beginning, I thought it was really cool. I thought, those girls have some real guts to go out there dressed like that. I liked how in the beginning there seemed to be two different dances going on at once – all the girls were moving in sync except for two, who were doing their own sort of dance. I thought this dynamic was cool, but as the show progressed I started to like the dance less and less. I really didn’t understand when the girls came out in dresses and kept repeating their names, and mixing up each person’s name. I couldn’t tell if that was some sort of private joke between the girls, but I don’t know any of the girls and I was so confused as to who was who. I liked it at the end, when they all changed their outfits to either the white or brown outfits. Everyone looked kind of like oreos.

Overall, I enjoyed the experience. I especially liked seeing The Scream. I would recommend it to others.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/2/21/1329830313060/The-only-privately-owned–008.jpg

At the beginning of the day, MoMA was definitely something I was excited to go to because it was something I would never imagine myself going on my own time. I never stepped foot into a museum. Except for the Natural History Museum, but I don’t really count that as an experience because I was young and I kind of just ran around with my friends at the time. I didn’t appreciate what was around me at the time. When we arrived, the first thing we saw was The Scream by Edvard Munch. This famous piece of artwork that I seen basically every where, on television, in textbooks, basically every where since I don’t even know how long, but to see it before my eyes was incredible. Although people praise this artwork, I looked at it and I said to myself, “This is it? This is what people obsess about, what people think is amazing.” I looked at it and it looked so simple, as if he just took Crayola crayons and wanted to draw something real quick. It didn’t look so special to me and that is when I realized I’m not an artsy person. I understand the time he took, but I expected to see GREAT detail to the point where I’d look at the painting and go, “I wish I was an artist.” However, when I looked at this artwork, I said to myself, “It looks like I can do this” (But of course I can’t because my drawing skills on a scale of 10 is undefined. It’s horrible I must tell you). I do enjoy looking at artwork, especially The Scream because I got to see this painting with my own eyes without media having to portray it themselves.

Also, at the MoMA, the photography section was a little too much for me. I guess the term “modern art” can be interpreted VERY loosely and I wish it wasn’t. I guess my view on that section of the museum is that if you are not open minded about stepping into the photography section of MoMA, then I don’t think you should. Just a fair warning.

Later that night, after watching The Barnard Fall Project, although I left early, it was a different experience. I walked into the theater with a very open mind, actually excited to see what this “modern dance” is because I didn’t even know there was such thing as “modern dance.” I guess, I know what it’s called modern. The way the danced was so very unique I would say. It was just their movements seemed so “different” in a sense. I guess it’s just not what I’m use consider dance. The one thing that really bothered me though was that during the second dance, they kept walking around to wherever they were going. It wasn’t dancing to me, it was just walk to where you need to stand and that what grind my gears at the moment. However, the one thing I must applaud about The Barnard Fall Project was the first dance because the fact that majority of the dance was performed without music. I’ve tried to dance without music in a group and it was a complete fail because people were just off beat, but during the performance everyone was basically in sync with each other. It was amazing to watch and the stamina that they have. Jeez… the amount of jumping and leaping and running and walking they did was just…. CLAPS FOR YOU GLENN COCO (Excuse my Mean Girls reference).

All I can say about this modern stuff is that one needs an open mind, I wish someone told me that sooner or else my mind would of been opened rather than closed. Now I know, an open mind is needed when you are exploring NYC in a different way than what I’m use to seeing NYC as I see it.