This semester we’ve covered artistic styles and cultures such as abstract expressionism, Dutch paintings, and even ancient Middle Eastern art.  However, if planning to visit the Met in the near future, one should also consider visiting the Asian art section to witness the “Storytelling in Japanese Art” exhibition.  The show showcases more than a hundred works from the 13th to 19^th centuries, including an variety of hand scrolls, screens, books, and hanging scrolls.

These beautiful scrolls have the ability to project a primeval movie.  For instance, the scroll “Illustrated Legends of the Kitano Tenjin Shrine,” (partially shown above) depicts the story of the life and afterlife of ninth-century poet Sugawara Michizane. After being unjustly killed, his angry spirit wreaks havoc on the world.  Thus, Nichizo, a courageous “acolyte” is sent to appease him.  The scroll depicts his journey, in which he even faces an eight-headed monster. Furthermore, this scroll is just one example of how the revamped exhibition mixes different narratives, genres and styles into groupings in order to tell different tales.

Many of the hand scrolls viewable in this showcase resulted from the spread of Buddhism from China to Japan.  This clearly reminded me of Islamic art discussions in class.  With the spread of Mohammad’s doctrine, artistic styles and patterns were allowed to spread and evolve over time.  Oftentimes religion plays a more crucial role in art than merely subject matter or inspiration, as seen by the growth of these two styles.  Moreover, by examining many a few of the Japanese pieces, I noticed certain similarities, such as the unique perspective in which people and objects are viewed in the foreground.  However, when it comes to detail, Islamic art’s remains unrivaled.

Some of the works truly have a distinct look, and once again if given the opportunity, don’t hesitate to check out the exhibit.  The Japanese Storytelling display will be up until May 6th, and starting from February 8th a second rotation of scrolls will be unraveled.

What is abstract expressionism, and what is the point?  These are the fundamentals question that artists such as Willem de Kooning don’t answer, but rather leave it up to the gazer to figure out.  The MoMA’s exhibition of de Kooning’s work pleasantly surprised me by surpassing my expectations of what an exhibit of abstract expressionism would convey.

The first group of pictures to captivate my attention was the large “Woman Series,” each of which were constantly revised by de Kooning.  Larger shapes filled the middle of the canvas and served as focal points for the rest of the piece.  Although obscured by many diagonal lines and colors, a feminine figure was clearly evident in these paintings.  De Kooning also flirted with other figurative styles characterized by enamel on cardboard or composition board.  Personally my eye did not make out people in those artworks, but rather figures resembling letters and numbers.

My favorite pieces, “The Time of Fire” and “January First” were oil and enamel on giant canvasses.  They each showcase a parallel style: a barrage of brushstrokes to the point where no dominant figures materialize.  The last series which impacted me were the large Untitled Series of the early 80’s.  Recurrent themes in these were the dominant background color, oftentimes white, contrasting colorful, yet graceful lines.  These refined brushstrokes, although abstract, would culminate into different figures and shapes.  For instance, I am convinced “Untitled 5” (shown below) is a waterfall.

Thus, the de Kooning exhibit is definitely one of the more interesting ones I experienced this year.  Instead of arbitrarily admiring random brush strokes, I was able to truly witness a progression in De Kooning’s style as my tour of the exhibit progressed. Unfortunately, it is hard to distinguish and recall most of the paintings I saw, for many of them shared the same name, “Untitled.”

Last week I posted about a man by the name of  Thomas Doyle who landed himself in Federal Court for fraud.  Doyle deceived an investor regarding the worth of a 19th century oil painting by Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot.   However, a recent predicament facing Federal investigators can be viewed as more devastating to the art world.

Authorities are looking into if whether a plethora of artworks, including paintings and drawings by Modernists such as Jackson Pollock and Robert Motherwell, are instead forgeries.  These pieces have been sold for years by the highest art dealers in the country, even going for as much as $17 million.  The works came to market through independent dealer Julian Weismann, and Glafira Rosales (who sold them through Anna Freedman, the president of Knoedler & Company).  Both parties’ lawyers have made statements that their clients had “never intentionally or knowingly sold artwork she knew to be forged.”

The drama escalates; earlier today London collector Pierre Lagrange, who bought “Untitled 1950” by Pollock for $17 million in 2007, sued the gallery and Ms. Freedman.  He argues the work is a forgery, and through forensic analysis has determined that the paints in the work had not been invented until after Pollock’s death.

As this continues to play out, this brings up a very interesting topic for discussion.  The authenticity of a famous piece is often obscure and experts are constantly called in to debate, then ease (or shatter) the hearts of students, buyers, and art historians worldwide. Thus, when buying a piece for $17 million, how can one really be sure that the work is actully what is being advertised, unless buying from the artist him/herself?  Furthermore, if you buy it from the artist directly, who is to say this piece will actually turn out to being a wise investment?  Unfortunately, buying art is often about blindly putting your faith where your money is.  Hopefully this matter is resolved smoothly and painfully, because being out $17 million doesn’t look so well in terms of business and your wallet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/arts/design/federal-inquiry-into-possible-forging-of-modernist-art.html?ref=arts

When we think of Abstract Expressionist painters, some of the first painters who come to mind are Franz Kileand and William de Kooning (whose exhibit we will see in a few weeks at the MoMA).  Nevertheless, the art world is now mourning the loss of another iconic, yet overshadowed artist, Pat Passlof.  In fact, these contemporaries, Passlof and de Kooning, actually studied together at the Black Mountain College in North Carolina.  Eventually in the 1940’s they met up again in New York where he mentored her.

Abstract expressionism, influenced by surrealism and artistic style seen in such artists as Kandinsky, is defined by a measure of spontaneity.  Nevertheless, there is a balance between the spontaneity and careful planning evident in the works categorized in this artistic movement.

Passlof’s work is unique in the fact that it is characterized by “unpredictable line and thick, luminous color” in which the brush strokes dominate the canvasses she uses.  Furthermore, she often densely layered the paint in a deliberate attempt to obscure the differences between figures and ground, providing a competing chemistry between the two entities.   Passlof has also been praised as a “master colorist,” with fluid geometry complimenting saturated, yet vibrant colors.  In the painting shown below, called “Gold, Red Centaurs,” she overcomes her struggles to draw model’s legs in real life by instead creating creatures in her works with more than two legs.

Passlof’s work is now on display until December 23 at the Elizabeth Harris Gallery in Chelsea.

http://www.albany.edu/museum/wwwmuseum/crossing/artist19.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/arts/pat-passlof-abstract-expressionist-painter-dies-at-83.html?scp=3&sq=kooning&st=cse

Since its inception, art has remained a fundamental channel of expression.  Nevertheless, it has always been a business, and as Devangana pointed out while alluding to Jerry Salt’s article “money runs art.”  For instance, whether in the form of patronage by a wealthy aristocrat, or through modern artists “selling out” quality  for quantity in an attempt to appeal to the audience rendering high prices, money and art are inseparable.  Thieves risk their lives to steal a famous painting, and, as can be seen more recently, even attempt to swindle investors in order to make a profit.

A “cockamamie scheme” by a man by the name of Thomas Doyle landed him in Federal Court on Monday for fraud.   He deceived an investor out of hundreds of thousands of dollars for the 19^th century “Portrait of a Girl.”   It is an oil painting by French artist Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot portraying a young, neglected looking female sitting in a chair.  This piece has even been assessed as high at $1.35 million in the last few years.  Doyle, who only purchased the painting for $775,00, told investor Gary Fitzgerald that he could resell the piece of art for 1.7 million.  Unfortunately for Doyle, the imaginary buyer of whom he was referring to did not leave without leaving a hefty fine.

The Federal judge, who identified her favorite painting as work by Corot, took no pity from the defense and ordered Mr. Doyle to pay the investor, Gary Fitzgerald, $880,000 as recompense.  That is the extent to which Fitzgerald paid him for what Fitzgerald trusted was an 80 percent ownership stake in the painting.

While reading this article, Jerry Salt probably is shaking his head in disgust.  Despite the judge’s ruling, both parties can be attributed with blame for Doyle should have never committed fraud, a serious crime; moreover Fitzgerald represents the “Megacollectors [who] suppose they can enter art history by spending astronomical amounts.”  However, a bit more research would have probably aided Fitzgerald in avoiding such a mess.

Furthermore, the fact remains that cases like these only exacerbate the problems resulting of money’s adulterous affair with art.  Critics, artist, and investors need to calculate the right balance of money’s authority in order to prevent artistic regression, and elevate future high quality masterpieces above mediocre manifestations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/22/nyregion/defendant-in-corot-art-fraud-case-gets-6-year-prison-sentence.html?ref=design

It is mid-semester, and as a class (and even as smaller groups) we have already visited some of the larger venues Manhattan has to offer.  However, if one truly wishes to immerse his/herself into a more comprehensive artistic culture, I suggest visiting the neglected, yet historical Hispanic Society of America situated in Washington Heights.  Built over a century ago in 1904, the beautiful Beaux art building houses critical texts, ornamental artworks, and photographs.  Furthermore, the museum boasts of such artists as Goya, Velázquez and El Greco.

Part of the problem of how this museum slipped under the radar these last few decades is simply due to its name.  “Hispanic Society” scarcely sounds like a celebrator or grand showcase of Old World cultures such as Spain and Portugal.   However, naming it after founder Archer Milton Huntington just might do the trick.  In turn, this might place it parallel to such museums as the Frick.

Nevertheless, the society refuses to sacrifice its integrity for a few new faces. Huntington’s (to the left) ambition was to showcase the soul of Spain (the term Hispanic used to be connoted with the Iberian Peninsula), and the museum leaders intend to keep it that way.

So this dilemma brings up an important point for discussion.  Why are many important outlets of culture so well hidden in our backyard?  I conclude that over the years, non-touristic hotspots and sites with little media coverage are merely thrown by the wayside.   Thus, once we have exhausted high profile places as the Met, MoMA, Guggenheim, and American Museum of Natural History, visiting lesser-known places would prove to be an indication of a TRUE Snob, and just not your average mere wannabe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/arts/design/changes-at-the-hispanic-society-of-america.html?pagewanted=1