Abstract? Or just Weird?
When viewing abstract art, many cannot help but to wonder, “What is going on here?” Quite frankly, this is a perplexing issue that plagues the majority of the works stemming from the abstract impressionism period. The peculiar choice in the portrayal of images is the distinct trademark of this period of art; usually an aberration or drastically deformed. However, all art is instilled with beauty – in interesting ways, for this case. The Metropolitan Museum of Art houses a gallery dedicated to modern art, with works from painters such as Jackson Pollack, Willem de Kooning, etc. Moreover, it is a welcome break from the more ancient pieces that are displayed throughout the rest of the establishment.
In the world of art, there are the well painted, and then the eye catchers. One such masterpiece was not a painting, but rather, a sculpture created by Theodore J. Roszak. This sculpture was created from 1950-1951, and was ultimately titled “Firebird,” after Stravinsky’s music. The representation is a tangible manifestation of the, “slow smoldering chords that accelerate and then whip up into a terrific frenzy of sound,” that characterizes Stravinsky’s musical arrangement. This iron brazed sculpture with bronze and brass, resembles the form of a phoenix – a creature of Oriental myth, which resembles a bird enveloped in fire. Although grotesque, with features similar to ribs protruding from the midsection, and a misshapen head, there is a majestic quality to it. Because it takes the form of a phoenix, there is a possibility that the underlying theme pertains to rebirth. As commented by Roszak, “it’s a Chinese allusion.”
Having seen the finished product, one wonders, how did the author come up with this concept? Like most art, the painter or sculptor creates a preliminary sketch, outlining and detailing the image according to their expectations. Coincidentally, the sketch, titled “Study for Firebird,” is also located within the gallery. However, the most striking aspect of the sketch is not that it is non-resembling of the sculpture; instead, it is more detailed than the sculpture, and the lines are surrounded by ink splatters (showing that the artist used quick strokes).
Taking a turn back to the origins of abstract impressionism, there is a work on display by American painter, Clyfford Still. This piece, “1947 H No.1 (PH-265),” was produced in 1947. By almost exclusively using black and white, Still achieves his goal; he wanted, “the viewer to be caught off guard and made uneasy, believing that ‘these are not paintings in the usual sense; they are life and death merging in fearful union.’” The viewer loses sense of where the figures start and end, where the focus is, and what the images actually are – clearly, it is up to the viewer to interpret. Perhaps the scene has a dark cloaked figure (with deformed legs, or the legs of a horse), standing amongst a fire (the ragged white on the bottom half), and maybe there is a house on the right.
As stated by Edmond de Goncourt, “a painting in a museum hears more ridiculous opinions than anything else in the world;” in short, the essence of art, is not for it to be labeled with an exact meaning – it should be left to the imagination of the viewers to interpret it as they wish. It is art such these, which define different stylistic eras. And it is institutions like the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which should be credited for enlightening the public by housing displays such as the modern art exhibit.