The Museum of Modern Art is always an interesting place to visit. Although, I did not have the opportunity to see the “Soundings: A contemporary Score,” exhibit, I did have the chance to see the work of René Magritte. Simply put, his work was very distinctive and unique and yet, at times seemingly familiar. This comes at no surprise especially since the description of his work, which was on the wall outside of the room, mentions that his technique is to “defamilarize the familiar.” Besides this technique, his work has more to it than we see on the surface.

Let’s start with his work titled, Le Faux Miroir. What we see is an eye with clouds in it.  What we can easily depict is that the person is looking at the sky and sees clouds. However, it could also be you looking at someone’s eye through a window and he’s looking at you. Although, at first glance it may look like a mirror reflection of an eye. An interesting detail to note is that the eye has no eyelashes. Even though this painting is nothing but an eye, looking at it I sense that the owner of this eye is deep in thought. To me this would also make sense because people, many times, are deep in thought when they look out of windows. Although there is no evidence to prove anything except it is an eye, it is much more than an eye to me.

 Then there is the work titled, The Interpretations of Dreams. This was very familiar because it was on the cover of Ways of Seeing. My favorite thing about this work is that I have the opportunity of seeing it in real life after seeing it on the cover of a book. There always that feeling of accomplishment when you see a real work. This work shows the difference between words and pictures. It’s hard to understand and I have little idea of what it should mean. It’s mysterious to me and I actually like that about it. It has the word “door” under a picture of a horse’s head. There is a clock above the word “wind” and so on. The words and pictures do not seem to match. It enhances the idea that things aren’t always what they seem.

Another notable painting to me is one titled, Not to be Reproduced. This painting shows a man and book in front of a mirror. The oddest thing is, the back of the man’s head shows up in the mirror but the book is correctly flipped. It took me a while just to realize the book was correctly flipped because the attention is on the person. It makes you wonder why Magritte decided to do that. According to the description the museum gave, it has a connection with Poe. Regardless, I think the title fits because perhaps the face cannot be reproduced.

The paintings in the whole exhibit showed a deep connection with each other. I noticed recurring ideas and pictures, such as the sky, a tuba, the human body, and mirrors. The idea behind Magritte’s work is perception. The things we see are not always what they seem. He makes even the most familiar things foreign and distorted, yet there is no doubt that they are also noticeable.

And here’s a rose for all of you.

Speaking of the value of art, a new record has been set for Warhol’s paintings. It’s amazing to see the value of art nowadays, isn’t it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/14/arts/design/grisly-warhol-painting-fetches-104-5-million-auction-high-for-artist.html?_r=0&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1384415827-5JJnGCJ3WUpS8CARztHecg

Did you ever wonder about the value of a Picasso? Well the painting, “Cigare” was worth 200,000 to 300,000 but was sold for 1.1 million. The same man, (China’s richest man, Wang Jianlin) bought another painting for 28 million. Makes you wonder what the value of Picasso is, doesn’t it?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-05/picasso-s-cigare-sells-for-1-1-million-in-dull-sale.html

The best part of the Metropolitan Museum of Art is having to walk past multiple exhibits just to reach the one you are looking for. While you’re in the same room as the art, you can’t help but to spend a couple minutes to see what the exhibit has to offer. During our unexpected trip to the Met last week, my group and I decided to see the Balthus exhibit called, “Cats and Girls—Paintings and Provocations.” However, because of a few wrong turns and having very little idea of where we were going (and the exhibit was far), we ended up passing through many other exhibits and seeing many different forms of art. 

Egyptian art was on of the most fascinating. We saw more than just the, hopefully empty, sarcophaguses and vessels of the deceased. We went around and visited the Temple of Dendur. The site is beautiful and the structure is amazing to look at. Of course, one of the first things we asked was, “how did it get there?” It doesn’t fit on a plane or boat very well. We then realized it was taken apart and brought over. Then it was reassembled. Since we were lucky enough to have Professor Eversley with us, we learned something else that was very interesting. It always occurred to me as odd that such an old structure could be in such perfect shape and stand, but we were told it was probably found in pieces. So how does it attach together so purposely? Artificial parts are used to help the structure come together and show what it might have looked like. If you look closely, you can differentiate the artificial bricks from the real ones. I would have never guessed it was so obvious. Another interesting thing you will observe by looking closely is the hieroglyphic writing carved out of the bricks. One section looked especially familiar to me, and might to you as well. There is a picture of two kings (Pharaohs) in front of each other. By looking at the hats, we know one is from the north and one is from the south. What it actually means is a mystery to me, but seeing such an important script is certainly an unique experience. Just thinking that the Egyptians were capable of building this sort of structure, with so much detail, with the tools and technology they had available to them is still unbelievable to think about.

The two pharaohs

Many pieces of American art was great to look at but one piece really caught my eye this time. Remember the giant George Washington photo we saw at the Brooklyn Museum? It was here too, front and center. As we walk towards the room, you can see it through several entrances away. The painting was larger than I remembered and I thought it was strange for it to be at two different locations. Turns out this is just a copy. Nonetheless, the art was interesting and it was fun to see this well-known painting again (and interesting to learn it’s not the real one).

Before stepping into the Balthus exhibit, I also saw several paintings by Picasso. Out of all things that stood out was learning about the Blue period. Yes, these paintings were quite blue. It might have been that blue was the cheapest paint at the time and that’s all he could afford. However, it is also likely that he was more depressed at this time. The paintings do seem to reflect depression and sadness or at least nothing happy or joyful. The blue seems to make everything gloomy.

Now the Balthus exhibit was surprising even though it shouldn’t have been. It was indeed an exhibit with paintings of cats and girls. The work was interesting and a little strange. Many paintings showed a young girl, his neighbor. They were suggestive and we can see many aspects we learned of in class. Remember what a cat can mean in a painting? Oh yeah there was a girl next to that cat. An interesting part of this exhibit is in one of the rooms, similar paintings with facing each other on opposite walls. I took me a while to realize I wasn’t just seeing things. In another painting, there was his neighbor, holding a mirror and a man in the back (pictured below). At first glimpse this may seem like another painting that’s suggestive, and it is! However (thanks to Prof Eversley), an interesting fact. That man you see, according to the girl, wasn’t there. He was just added in. It really makes you think about how artists think of how the artist’s mind works and why they do what they do.

Can you imagine if the man in the back was not there?

Despite having been to the Met multiple times, this trip was the most interesting and the only time I noticed small details in the art. I learned more than I ever did at a museum just by stopping and observing. Special thanks to Eversley for sharing her knowledge!

In this article in the Washington Post, Anne Midgette writes about the current state of museumgoers and it’s certainly worth reading. We can all relate and easily fall into her observations. She notes that museumgoers do not do much except go to the museum and take photos of the artwork. Few stop to analyze the works of art. They basically just replicate it on their phones and cameras. This really had me thinking. This is my habit. I just take photos of photos and pictures. (Of course, that is becoming less true of taking this class.) If we think about this ac, it’s very useless because all of these photos are on the internet. A simple Google search can bring you to the paintings of Monet. These are likely better than any photo you would have taken anyways. If you want a replicated image, you have the internet. If you go to the museum, go and enjoy the fact the real one is right there, right in front of you.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/museums/on-the-prowl-for-memories-museumgoers-resort-to-snapshots/2013/10/03/051d5924-2790-11e3-b3e9-d97fb087acd6_story.html

When we went to galleries and collections, we were looking at pieces of art that are displayed and meant to be sold or is meant to benefit the owner financially. As surprising as it may seem, there are artists who make art because they want to and do not sell even when the art is highly regarded.

Janet K. Ruttenberg is one of these artists. In the article below, Lisa W. Foderaro writes about this amazing painter. Ruttenberg has painted beautiful pictures of Central Park, in Central Park, but has never sold a single one of those paintings. Now, at the age of 82, she is allowing her 17 paintings to be displayed in a show called “Picturing Central Park,” at the Museum of the City of New York City.

I find it amazing that Ruttenberg has the patience to create this large paintings and to not have a large show for them until now. She painted for the sake of painting and it certainly worth seeing. I wonder how the paintings were kept in such good condition since she painted them on grass and stepped on it.

It’s an interesting read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/nyregion/the-painter-janet-ruttenberg-likens-the-sheep-meadow-to-a-cathedral.html?_r=0