MoMa

I visited the MoMa today with an Arts in NYC class from Queens. We specifically viewed DeKooning’s works. Firstly, it was interesting to see how the art was displayed, especially since I came right after the Photo Day at the Macaulay building. It was arranged in sequential order, from the still-life he painted as a teenager to the large, abstract paintings for which he is famous today. I’d like to say I loved his work but I didn’t. The professor of the class I was with said that the still-life was put in to show how DeKooning could have painted like that had he chosen. It was meant to prove that he wasn’t just scribbling and flinging paint. He was a talented painter who decided to express himself in a different way. The professor continued that anyone can paint a still-life but it takes a talented person to paint the works that DeKooning did later in his life.

I heartily disagree with this. I don’t contest that DeKooning has a right to express himself in any way he chooses and that many others find the product of this creative expression appealing. My response, however, to the professor’s latter comment was that any three year old could have done what DeKooning did. Not in the literal sense, but in theory. One could argue DeKooning has a distinctive style. He has a color tone he uses often, an angle, a brush stroke, the texture…. but everyone has a particular style, including the three year old who prefers bright colors to pastels and circles to squares. Conversely, a three year old, or even someone who fashions himself an artist cannot draw a beautiful still-life unless he is actually good at what he does. Obviously, something about DeKooning’s work is beautiful to many people who chose to celebrate his pieces as opposed to others of his time. That’s why he’s famous. That’s why he’s in the MoMa.

This wasn’t supposed to be a rant on modern art, but there you have it.