Category — Critics’ Corner

Before going to the Museum of Modern Art on Thursday, the last time I went to an art museum was with my parents, when I was just eight years old. I remember my Dad commenting on how me and my twin sister were so anxious about getting it over with that we would run through all the exhibits without really looking at anything in order to get the trip over with as soon as possible. I do not know where my parents got the bright idea to bring two eight year olds to an art museum, but the events that unfolded that day might have something to do with the fact that my Mom has never asked or shown interest in going to a Museum ever again. My Dad, on the other hand, has always wanted me to experience culture and when he found out that I was going to MOMA with my class he could not have been more ecstatic. I, on the other hand, was cautious before seeing the exhibits at the MOMA, since I was told that some of the art was mind-boggling.

The day of the trip I arrived at the museum around forty-five minutes early, allowing me to walk around the gift shop and lobby area. The only way I can give a review of MOMA is if I include my first impressions, even if the stuff in the gift shop were not what some people would consider art, they interested me enough so that I remember them almost as well as the paintings. After entering the museum’s doors I immediately thought that any museum with big flat couches and plants in elaborate glass containers jutting out of the wall should be an interesting experience. I was also intrigued the witty assortment of interesting paraphernalia I saw in the gift shop. This included wind up feet, a metal Rubik’s cube which changed shapes, and cups with the Piet Mondrian pattern on it. After being impressed with my initial surroundings I could not be any more excited to see the rest of the museum

The first exhibit we saw was a piece by a man who hated museums and hated mainstream art. The exhibit consisted of all the food he ate for an entire year. It was interesting, but if I did not really know if it was actually art, and it did to interest me enough to even debate the matter. My problem was that if someone is going to take something that most people do not consider art and then call it art, in my opinion it has to be at least interesting enough to spark some sort of debate. All this exhibit did was make me feel sorry for a guy who seemed to live off of lemonade and asthma medication for a year.

The next exhibit was a showcase of how modernism has evolved over the years from abstract images of real things to the complete and total simplicity. I really did enjoy learning and seeing for myself how modernism evolved. I was impressed by how the curators set the show rooms up, allowing us to, not only see individual artists works in one room, but also the evolution of modernism, and the different forms modernism took. From the perfectly smooth paintings with only a line going through it, to multi-textured works with layers of seemingly random and chaotic brush strokes, it was all quite a spectacle. I could only guess as to what each individual artist was trying to prove, but it was still very pretty and always fascinating.

I was most intrigued by the last exhibit we saw, the one that that examined lines. Even though the theme and ideas that were displayed went way over my head, it was still interesting to see the way artists used lines in different ways. Some of my favorite pieces from that exhibit were the box made out of barbed wire, as well as the quirky way the curators made a line around the exhibit using every day items like duck tape, combs and rulers. The pieces on display varied from grandiose displays covering entire walls to small little photographs one could easily miss. It was fun looking at all the art and finding new and interesting pieces every time we entered a room. I thought that the idea of having small and medium sized rooms with only fragments of the exhibit in each one was a brilliantly idea. The way the exhibits are laid out really makes you want to see what is in the next room and stops you from trying to see everything at once by just walking down a long corridor like in other museums.

Overall, I was pleasantly surprised with what was presented at the MOMA. Even though almost all the art was too abstract for me to comprehend the curators made it so that even people who know nothing about modern art can enjoy the pretty paintings and sculptures, as well as some of the more quirky and interesting stuff they have. Even though most people associate MOMA with abstract art that can only be understood by New York intellectuals, I still felt that the museum welcomed someone like me, who did not know what to expect or how to appreciate it.  Whether it’s two fans blowing a round metal wire back and forth, classic works of modern art, or cool toys at the gift shop, MOMA seems to have something for everyone.

The “Abstract Expressionist New York” exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) held a wide variety of different forms of abstract art, some more impressive than others. Some of the first paintings I saw consisted of a uniform colored background with a strip of a different color running down the middle. This is exactly the kind of art I always poke fun at for not being real art. Perhaps you need to have knowledge in the technical aspects of art in order to appreciate such work but I believe that the average individual has a limited appreciation of such simple design. I frequently heard the people around me saying things like, “My dog could make that!” Art is generally perceived as a product of someone with a unique talent for creating beautiful work and some of the art in this exhibition did not give off that impression.

I personally think that for something to be considered art, it has to hold some meaning for its viewers. Therefore art has different significance depending on who is observing it. A piece that may be considered art by some people can be considered worthless by others.

I found myself drawn to the less abstract and more detailed pieces in the exhibit. One of these paintings was “Gladiators” by Philip Guston. It depicts four children and a dog playfully fighting each other. The most interesting aspect of the painting is the fact that all the children’s heads are covered so that you cannot see their faces. Though I was not sure what the message of the piece was it captured my attention with its bright colors and missing faces. The description of the piece mentioned that much of Guston’s early art focused on the Ku Klux Klan, which may explain the covered heads of the children. The possibility of a story behind this painting intrigued me.

http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?criteria=O%3ATA%3AE%3Aex4692&page_number=2&template_id=1&sort_order=1&template_folder=abex

Another piece of art that caught my attention was “Washington Crossing the Delaware,” by Larry Rivers. This was based on its namesake, a more well known painting by Emanuel Leutze. Larry Rivers used similar shades of brown, red, and blue to recreate the same scene, however he did this in a very original way in which everything in the painting seems to blend together. The hazy figure of George Washington is the most prominent person in this painting, staring out into the museum.

http://www.larryriversfoundation.org/whats_new.html

One piece of art that completely confounded me was “Abstract Painting,” by Ad Reinhardt. It featured a square canvas painted black. On close inspection you could see that there were three slightly different shades of black, which did not really alter my opinion of the painting in any way. It simply remained a black square, devoid of any meaning.

http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=78976

There are many different forms of expression in art, as well as many different ways to interpret these forms. The “Abstract Expressionist New York” exhibition displays many different kinds of art and holds something appealing to everyone. Even if you do not like anything you see, you are exposed to pieces that can at the very least be called interesting.

Seeing George Maciunas’ diet presented in a piece representative of the Fluxus exhibit begged the question, “what is art?”  It shows how we change our perceptions of art, aesthetics, and beauty over time, even if individuals don’t consider it art.  The organization of the food containers looked like panels of printed paper from afar and not just piles of food.  Whether to consider this art is subjective, but the piece is nonetheless revealing of his life and his perceptions.

Jackson Pollock

http://www.fotos.org/galeria/data/551/Jackson-Pollock-Untitled-1950-MOMA-NYC.jpg

From the widely known works of Jackson Pollack and De Kooning to the lesser known Rothko and Hofmann, the Abstract Expressionism exhibit reflects the post-World War II art movement, a movement challenging the way people perceived art and how to portray figures and landscapes.  Pollack’s work has such interesting texture, certain color, and certain movement that gives it a certain mood.  To me all of his works basically look the same yet produce a slightly different mood with varying color choices.

Pousette-Dart

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4154/5224011777_7a73a47e73.jpg

The artist that I enjoyed the most was Pousette-Dart whose pieces were colorful and intricate, conveying a certain feeling and distorting shapes in some chosen curves and lines.  Many look like machines, reminiscent of Salvador Dali’s surrealism, and are abstract yet provide a perception of depth and layers.

Then there were the sculptures that looked strange and unseemly, yet were supposed to be the artist’s reflection of a body or an object.  There was a room that was mostly blocks of color with a line or two on the canvas; one “piece of art” appeared to be a wooden stick painted black and tacked on to the wall.  It is easy to say that a five year old could have done some of these, and I concur with that sentiment for art like the stick.  Yet the lines or colors are probably chosen purposefully, and observing them up close helps one appreciate the texture in the canvas.  But that stick just seemed to have drips of paint.

The “On Line: Drawing Through the Twentieth Century” exhibit produced some interesting three dimensional works as well as interesting two dimensional works all playing with form and space.  Incorporating video and modern dance, this exhibit captured both still and moving image, the most questionable of which was the nude, tortured looking woman who attached herself to a harness of paper covered walls, and drew on them.  Perhaps it is the method that makes the art, and the end piece may be called art, but that simply doesn’t make it enjoyable or thought provoking.

http://thefastertimes.com/newyorktheater/files/2010/03/scottsboroboys2.jpg

Jim Crow representation

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Jimcrow.jpg

In 1932, Rosa Parks married Raymond Parks and the two join the campaign to save the Scottsboro Boys; in 1955, she was arrested for refusing to move on the bus.  Her peaceful resistance on that night is widely taught, but the Scottsboro Boys are hardly as much of a household name.  In a rather bright, humorous (though darkly humorous) manner, “The Scottsboro Boys” tells an important and regrettable case in history.  Told in the minstrel tradition, “Scottsboro” is at once funny, offensive, and a reminder of the past.  A colorful set, vivid costuming, a simple but intricate set, an incredibly engaging, talented cast, the political undertones, and to some extent the offensiveness of the play made “Scottsboro” captivating and entertaining yet with a bit of bite.

The presentation of the story of a rape case between a white woman’s claim, black defendants, and a white jury in the South is reminiscent of Harper Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird, yet the mocking minstrelsy, vivid color, and bright lighting kept the play feeling modern.  The simple set with interlocking chairs representing the prison, the train, and various other sets was genius.  I especially liked the train scene where the tambourines were used as the wheels of the train, and the actors made it look like the train was moving.  So many people moving on such a makeshift structure made it so surprising that is was so sturdy when actors jumped on top of it.

The song in that scene was so catchy; “commencing in Chattanooga…” is still playing in my head.  Yet the bubbly tunes come in sharp contrast to the subject matter.  Cheery music including tambourines, memorable beats, and the occasional beat from tap dancing provided an irresistible upbeat feeling.  The contrast was most distinct during the electric chair scene; although the chair signifies imminent death, the movement and staging seemed to suggest nothing of the sort.

The most memorable performance came from Joshua Henry who portrayed Haywood Patterson who in the play was put into solitary confinement and died in prison.  He provided strength and dynamism in his dance movement, acting, voice, and simple presence.  Other memorable performances include the youngest in the cast, Julius Thomas III, who portrayed Roy Wright, Colman Domingo and Forrest McClendon who portrayed the offensively funny and changing roles of Mr. Bones and Mr. Tambo.

It is a shame that the show is closing on December 12 at a 5 million dollar loss, though the producers contend it is due to the economy more than the protests.  “The Scottsboro Boys” keeps present episodes in our history that we might like to forget, but question society today.  Although spoken by the interlocutor (played by John Cullum), his message resonates: “Gentlemen, be seated.”

Unique. Innovative. Controversial. MoMA is home to countless artworks, many of which embody all three characteristics. George Macuinas’s display, One Year, certainly falls into that category. “It just looks like a supermarket,” I heard someone comment when we first walked in. I, on the other hand, saw something aesthetically deliberate about the work. When I witnessed the empty food containers stacked in rows against the wall, I quickly noticed the patterns of colors and shapes they created. It was a difficult piece to interpret, if it had any meaning at all, but I could feel that the artist had carefully and intentionally arranged all the boxes, cartons, lids and plastics to be just where they were.

Other rooms showcased incredibly simple works that were hard to accept as masterpieces. Lee Krasner’s Number Three, for instance, was a canvas which displayed a random series of soft-colored red, blue and beige vertical stripes. I found the combination of colors appealing, but its lack of intricacies bothered me. I wondered how this could be displayed in such a renowned museum, when it appeared as if any person could have created it. When I encountered Barnett Newman’s Onement, 1, I was again struck with the same question. This time, the piece was a brown painted canvas with a single pumpkin-orange stroke running through the middle. “It’s modern,” some claim; “it’s just a line,” others might protest. Personally, I found myself leaning towards the latter.

As I continued to wander through the museum, I caught sight of a painting that completely stole my attention. From a distance, I could only see an irregular green shape surrounded by a dark blue background. When I approached the piece, I finally realized what the unidentified green mass on the canvas was: a slime monster! I stared at the painting for a while, then glanced at its white description box, only to discover that William Baziote had intended for the green “monster” to be a dwarf. As pointed out by my classmate, Sara, art can be exciting when one makes sense of it, but can also be disappointing if one becomes disillusioned with the artist’s actual idea.

On the other hand, I was shocked with Hedda Sterne’s painting for the opposite reason. When I first looked at New York, VIII, I felt as if the piece was screaming, “New York City!” After my experience with Baziote’s Dwarf, however, I managed to convince myself that I was wrong, and attempted to re-evaluate the artwork. After thirty seconds or so, I gave up and looked at the caption provided. I was stunned by the title, for it showed that the painting was in fact a portrayal of the city. I could not imagine how Sterne accomplished conveying such a clear vision without the use of lines and definite shapes. Her piece was abstract in appearance, but rather direct in the portrayal of her idea. Even days after having seen this painting, I am still dumbfounded by Sterne’s artistic talent, which radiates from this piece.

Through my visit to MoMA, I discovered that whether one is trying to define it or interpret it, art, as subjective as it is, presents a viewer with many challenges. In the end, however, I believe that art is really whatever you want it to be. An artist may present a work that is plain or elaborate, tiny or massive, predesigned or spontaneous; no matter what, it is up to the observer to decide whether a piece’s sensory impact, be it visual or auditory, is enough to make it art.

1940s: As wounds were still healing in Europe, New York City jumped on the opportunity to steal the spotlight. The result? Abstract expressionism. Abstract expressionists in NYC ushered in modern art into the post-WWII era.

Much of modern art is just simple ideas that one person decided to display. Although some may peg it as a ridiculous extortion of the definition of “art,” anything may be considered art so long as it expresses some creative skill or imagination. Since new forms of art are modern in their use of color, texture, design, and subject, they are the manifestation the imagination of modern man. The MoMA Abstract Expressionism exhibit showcases the abstract art of the 1940s, the progeny of New York City’s then-chicest artists. These  artists brought new ideas to the artist’s palette, shifting the focus from more conventional to more modern.

In Jackson Pollock’s “drip painting” pieces, he throws paint all over the canvas. What makes this art? He creates texture by embedding objects in the surface of layers of paint. Actually, the paintings reminded me of ice cream flavors. His “No. 1A” (1948) as cookies ‘n cream, and “Full Fathom Five” as mint chocolate chip. An even bigger cookies ‘n cream is his “One: Number 31” (1950).

“No. 1A” (1948) Jackson Pollock

"Full Fathom Five" (1950) Jackson Pollock

Texture was very important to William de Koonig, as apparent in his “A Tree in Naples,” in which he creates a certain depth unusual for a 2-D painting. What makes this art? The purposeful inversion of color to expand the color of nature. In doing so, it produces visual enthusiasm for the viewer. I noticed a similarity between Saul Leiter’s photos and de Koonig’s “Valentine.” Hedda Stein’s use of reflections and blurriness capture the New York City scene in “New York, VIII” (1954) was also oddly familiar to me. Then I remembered reading that abstract paintings were Leiter’s stated muse for his photography.

"Valentine" (1947) Willem de Koonig

Ad Reinhart introduced a new art form, in which he experiments with different shades of color. The different shades of black are divided into sections of thirds, and become visible only after prolonged viewing. His “Abstract Painting” (1957) is simply a painting of three blocks of black, lined up next to one another. It is a simple yet brilliant piece of art. What makes this art? It broadens the idea of what color is.

The new art is all about experimentation. Arshile Gorky plays with shapes, Ad Reinhart with shades of color, Jackson Pollock with lines, Willem de Koonig with color and texture, Mark Rothko with layers. Together, they create an expanded register of talent, eye candy for museumgoers. To that end, MoMA ought to be renamed Musem for the Chic. The exhibits are bright, vivid, colorful, fun. Chic. The people are even chic. Take a look at the people walking through the galleries. Lots of hip, well-dressed Barbies with their Kens. A bunch of people who think abstract expressionism is “rad.”

When I your first walked into the Museum of Modern Art you are immediately greeted with a piece of art. Although, at first it may not be apparent, the soil and flowers that were encapsulated represent art. The definition of art is wide and almost anything can be perceived as art as long as it represents our surroundings shown in an interpretive form. The plants in the capsules were forms of art because nature is a form of art itself. In nature nothing is symmetrical and everything from the soil to the trees is a unique art form. Different shapes and forms are formed in nature that the human mind is unable to create. This lack of form creates a sense of abstractness that is present in nature.

As you actually begin entering the exhibits the first thing you are presented with two fans blowing at each other and two pieces of circular tape dangling in the air. This was an unusual form of art, but it was art nevertheless. The dangling pieces of tape were effective ways of showing off the power of the mind. It represented a new way of thinking that was not present in current art. This piece defies all standard works of art because this work of art is not a still piece of drawing or sculpture but actually something that was alive and moving. It was very innovative and I definitely would classify that as unconventional art.

As I moved onto the fourth floor I saw a piece of so-called art by Barnett Newman. It is a long vertical piece of wood about one-and-a-half inches wide and that is all it is, just a piece of wood. I do not understand why this “sculpture” was put up as a work of art; it may be natural but it lacks any abstractness nor does it create any unique shape. To call the piece of wood a work of art is like calling the chair I am sitting on a piece of art as well. However, I soon found sculpture that was art. David Smith created “Cubi X” which was a stainless steel sculpture that depicted a human figure. Smith chooses to use something as still as geometric form to create the human form, which is very hard to duplicate. What was most astonishing was the way the steel reflected the lighting of the room further intensifying his work of art.

Finally on the last floor I saw the “On Line” exhibit. People have said that these works of art are controversial, but I saw nothing controversial about it at all. The first thing I saw was a series of strings lined up in the sky. It created something that looked like the night sky. This was the ultimate form of art because the artist took something man made and duplicated nature. There was no stillness in the strings because it created a unique shape. As I walked into the exhibit there were even more strings, each of which created their own shape and took up their own space. Everything on this floor looked like art, until I saw a video. The video was of a naked woman painting the wall by twisting her body in grotesque ways and hanging on a latch. This cannot be art at all, what she made was just a bunch of lines and the way she created her “art” was unconventional. She did nothing too special with her body and simply wormed her way around.

My visit to the Museum of Modern Art was very enlightening and it opened my mind to the creative abilities of many artists. It also made me think about the definition of art. What constituted a piece of art? Was it the message it was trying to send or the way it was made? I believe that the way it was made and the shape of the work counts the most.

The Broadway production of The Scottsboro Boys combines piercing social commentary with all the style and pizzazz of an old-fashioned musical. Instead of relying on a straightforward, and what was surely to be a heavy handed narrative of the real life Scottsboro boys, this musical interrupts its more serious subject matter with comedic elements and upbeat musical numbers. Scottsboro takes comedic relief to new heights, but at times it feels like its own unique style overwhelms the very substance of the story. The cast is almost entirely made up of African American men, some who play white and female roles. This is where the play takes the opportunity to turn the minstrel tradition on its head. The opportunity to see a play about thirteen black men unjustly convicted of raping two white women, while at the same time being treated to the visual shock of men dressed in drag and cotton candy musical numbers is a once in a lifetime experience, even if its parts do not satisfy as whole.

The plot of the musical follows nine African Americans who are unjustly accused of raping two white women. The story is a sad and true one and even though The Scottsboro Boys is full of comedic moments the dramatic roles are overwhelmed. Scottsboro Boys turns the minstrel tradition on its head in order to show how irrational things were back when racism and the Jim Crow plagued the southern United States. The prisoners are the only ones played without exaggeration. This makes these nine young men, who are the ones locked in prison, the only rational characters in the entire play. Aptly played by the entire ensemble, these dramatic roles shine through with importance and sincerity, allowing the audience to see how hopeless their situation actually was.

Even though the dramatic parts can stand on their own, it is really the musical numbers and minstrel tradition, which make the Scottsboro Boys, for whatever reasons, such an intriguing and controversial production. The musical numbers scattered throughout the play are a mix of cynicism and irony. The music, dance, and lighting evoke the joy and wonder found in old-fashioned musicals, but the subject matter would suggest the contrary. A particularly disturbing dream sequence has the youngest prisoner, only twelve years old, dancing around electric chairs and facing electrocution.  Sometimes these types of scenes can distract too much from the story, and on a couple of occasions they even turned me off from a moral standpoint.

That raises the question, which has been raised countless times about this play, whether or not The Scottsboro Boys is all in good taste, or if it indeed goes too far? I am hardly qualified to answer that question and would suggest that if you have not seen it that you should not form an opinion until you see it. But, Scottsboro Boys does tread a fine line between telling the audience what really happened to those nine souls and turning their story into comedic fodder, even if the comedy is geared towards the boy’s captors and not the boys themselves.

On a technical level The Scottsboro Boys is near perfect. The lighting, music, and sounds are all used to convey the mood of each scene in a way that clearly shows a lot of time had been put into getting the details perfect. The dancing and stage direction is also phenomenal, with a few memorable dance sequences. The use of stackable, metal chairs, as part of the set throughout the entire play is ingenious and sets a swift pace for a production, which has no intermission. The plain and boring costumes of the nine prisoners juxtapose well with the exaggerated costumes worn by the guards, sheriff, and other characters with comedic roles.

Overall it is hard to say whether or not The Scottsboro Boys is a great musical, but it is worth seeing and is definitely very good. There are a few problems and controversies, but that should not spoil what is otherwise a powerful, memorable and well-performed production.

The Scottsboro Boys on Broadway is an artistic and at times ironically whimsical retelling of a well-known injustice. Through its unique brand of retelling, Broadway can amplify the emotions behind any historical headline. This is where Scottsboro falls slightly short. The attempt to emphasize the incredulity of the charges brought against the nine young black men was often overshadowed by what could be described as an excessive maintenance of Broadway lightheartedness.

Not all musicals have to be happy. In order to achieve critical acclaim and audience hearts a musical must awe. The “immortal” musicals throughout the last century varied from lighthearted children’s tales to bloody horror stories, each managing to earn Broadway timelessness. Scottsboro possesses qualities that put it on a path towards renown, but in the end something is missing.

One of the most interesting creative decisions was the usage of a ninety-nine percent black cast to portray not just black, but also white characters. The audience enjoyed the mocking representations of the young white “victims” and the law enforcement officers. This parody of the characters’ personas was appropriate; one might go so far as to say metaphorical. The Scottsboro trials were charade-like so including parody in the story was a well though out mixture of plot and satire.

The demographics of the audience were another interesting factor of Wednesday night’s performance. Viewers were predominately white, which is curious, considering the story is one that marked the beginnings of affirmative action and black empowerment. In contrast, attendance of the premier season of Margaret Garner, an extremely serious slave story, at the Metropolitan Opera seemed significantly more mixed. Perhaps Scottsboro’s unconventional presentation of the black struggle in America was less appealing to the black community because of the unorthodox and extreme presence of humor. Granted, the humor was mostly ironic and satirical but it can still feel belittling.

The score of the musical was all over the place. A number of songs were beautiful, and the majority of the voices were divine but quite a few numbers seemed less striking and frankly lacked lyrical depth. The songs allowed the young actors to display their immense vocal talents but again, detracted from the genuineness of the story.

The Scottsboro Boys wasn’t however, unsuccessful. Upon concluding the viewing experience the audience is not left feeling jolly. Instead a communal feeling of disgust seemed to set itself upon the spectators. The minstrel show element is disturbing, which is the emotion that should arise following any story based off of the Scottsboro trials. Although some major elements of the production ranging from tone to song lyrics could use development, the musical itself thankfully strode away from the amusing temperament of the majority of the show and more towards a realistic, melancholy one. The audience is drawn back into reality towards the conclusion of the performance. Without this occurrence the musical would have been thoroughly unsuccessful but the manner with which it was executed is cause for thought over the intentionality of the storyline. Perhaps the message here is the danger of performance, of the retelling of stories. The audience on Friday night quickly seemed to forget that this was a true and terrible story of a serious injustice. As we are pulled back from false merriment to dank reality at the end, one notes how easy it is to forget that which we ought be embarrassed of.