I have long enjoyed going to museums. I like the feel the feel of them, not just the works they house, but the ambiance and aura associated with a place dedicated to art. In big museums I could easily spend an afternoon or an entire day wandering the halls taking in all that the place has to offer. But, I must admit I have decidedly mixed feelings about modern art. So when we headed to the Irish Museum of Modern Art, or IMMA in downtown Dublin, my skepticism went along with us. The museum itself is an homage to the eclectic mixture of old and new. The 17th-century architecture of the building competes with the contemporary sculptures that dot the grounds. There's no blend or confluence to the different forms, just a stark contrast of two notably different eras. That's probably on purpose. Modern art aficionados probably find some artistic meaning in that. I find it annoying.
There are two main exhibits currently showing at IMMA. The exhibit's curator calls Thomas Demand Germany's most "innovative contemporary artist."
Innovative.
Interesting word choice. Demand was trained as sculptor but now photographs scenes that he has painstakingly constructed of three-dimensional, life-size models of architecture and objects.
The exhibition is titled "L'esprit d'Escalier." There is no English equivalent to the phrase but the literal translation is "wit of the staircase" and refers to the regret one feels after missing an opportunity to deliver a witty comeback or parting shot.
My response?L'esprit d'escalier, mais oui.
I did better with the second exhibit.
Those in the art-world-know tell us American painter Alex Katz eschewed the two main forces of art during his heyday. He reacted against the dominant Abstract Expressionism of the 50's (ala Jackson Pollock) and later the Pop Art of the 1960's. Katz did many protraits and his wife Ada was a frequent muse as seen here.
The Irish Times interviewed the now 80 year old Katz about his paintings and the exhibit at IMMA. What I considered simplicity of line and subject in his work Katz describes as "shocking in all that it leaves out... but the mind fills in what's missing."
I preferred Katz's landscapes more than portraits of which there were only a handful at this exhibit. I liked the colors and brightness of landscapes.
I tend to be attracted to paintings of or inspired by nature anyways, perhaps that's why I'm looking forward to IMMA's next exhibit of Georgia O'Keefe.
I'll continue to explore the world of modern art. And at least for now, I'll probably continue to have mixed reactions to what I see. I think back on past modern art experiences like visits to the Tate Modern in London and SFMoMA and it the reaction was the same: mixed. But perhaps that's part of the real beauty of art, the individual and varied reactions of those who experience it.
2 comments:
Your preference for art-not-so-modern began quite early, Katy. Dad and I recall a visit with to a church in Zurich--if we recall correctly--when you were about 5 years old. Marc Chagall had designed some windows which were really stunning--if you like his kind of work, which I do. After walking all around the church, with me oohing and aahing after the Chagall masterpieces, you said to me, "I really like the other windows better." "Which windows?" I asked. "Those!" and you pointed to the much older, much more traditional rose windows in the beautiful blues and reds that reflect the light so beautifully. You've always known what you liked and what you didn't. Sorry, modern ART.
I'm with you. Maybe I've just seen bad modern art. While wandering the Tate Modern in London with John, I believe he put it best "most of this is crap on a plate...in fact crap on a plate might be better" or something like that. So much of what is considered modern art I fail to see as art at all...my loss, I guess!
Post a Comment