snob snob in tate tate.. or how i went to the tate modern

Today was a lovely day. I went to see some art! That's always a beautiful day, but very exhausting. The problem with me going to see art is always the fact that I over-think everything. I can't just go to a show and look at some paintings and say "that's cool". I have to write a million notes, google everything later, go in the same rooms a million times sometimes, make spiteful comments at people in the museum, stare at the brushwork in one particular painting for 7 minutes, and then walk right past all the Picassos and the Dalis as people watch and think me either a lunatic or a person who knows nothing about art. Thankfully, I am a very proud lunatic.

The problem with museums is that anybody can go and see it all. I am going to sound like a total snob, but that's what artists are, right? WHY take a kid in a fucking crib to a museum? WHY bring light fold-away chairs?? WHY walk around aimlessly without taking anything in, as if you went for a walk in the park??? WHY say the most retarded shit that makes me turn around and spit and curse at you hoping you won't hear me.... argh I will never understand why we need museums for the sake that most people think we need them. I am a snob when it comes to a lot of things, but I am a super snob when it comes to art. Most people don't know anything about art, don't know in what form it exists, where to find it, how to look at it, what to do around it. It makes me so angry that art in its very obvious visual form will never be taken in as seriously as it needs to be. People don't understand how art IS imporant, how it is a tremendous part of life, and even if you think art doesn't touch you, you are so incredibly pathetic for thinking that.

Now of course after the rant I am going to post what I thought about my explorations in the Tate Modern. I managed to see 3 "parts" because that took me 2 hours and the museum was closing (haha) but I think it was very well spent time.

First of all, I went to the "Poetry and Dream" aka surrealists and such. Right at the start, I wrote "what is the big deal with Magritte and Miro?" I don't know why but those two artists I just never liked. They are not like Picasso, who you must love if you know nothing about art, and must hate if you think you know a bit about art. And they are not like Dali, whom you must hate hate hate. But for me, Magritte represents the type of art that looks very innocently "pure" (from the line work, the drawing itself) but at the same time totally covered up by the seriousness/surreality of it. I am not a fan. Miro is just boring. I don't think using bold colors is a statement, or a preference. Actually, I really dislike most of the colors he uses. And I am just not a fan of the "abstract" art form but on that later.

Overall, I am not even a fan of surrealism, but I can really like some paintings, or even artists. Big fan of De Chirico of course, he is the big dreamer. I mean his paintings really have some sort of dreamy thing going on, even when it's not as blatantly obvious as the (oh-oh...) Dali or the others. His dream sequences are nightmarish presented in sunlight and calmness, which just makes it so much worse. I liked the painting "A mi-voix" by Dorothy Tanning,

Matta's "Black Virtue" 

and went crazy when I saw Motherwell - all these art history classes didn't go to waste after all.

Like I said, Dali needs to be hated as much as possible, but Tanguy strikes me as the more interesting in terms of actual art. I am a big fan of Grosz because he is incredibly bitter and his works are soaked in hatred, spite, all these wonderful human emotions.

I sat through a film they were showing, "Meshes of the Afternoon" and it drove me crazy. Some scenes were so photocinematically perfect! And the whole thing, like a dream within a dream, within a dream, within... you get the point. It depicts a world stagnated in a circular kind of plot, where images, people, symbols are all repeated in the same scenes but with different alterations. Even though shot in totally real time, there is very little reality in the film, it just drives you nuts by the end. Great work.

I wrote down "Joan Arp (Hans Arp) - killer of individual thought concerning balance and composition in modern art" but I still have to figure that one out. I don't particularly enjoy Max Ernst, but I do like his "Entire City" and some other works as well that they had in the museum.

And then of course I went crazy about Francis Bacon. I've never seen so much in such a short period of time, and so I was overwhelmed and of course led me to think of art as dirty, unclean, suffering, painful, etc, all those things art should be and not always is. This is a very important thought I have about art in general, but not all art of course. There was a point in time when art could actually be positive, but I think now that idea is quite ridiculous. All art now is an answer to something, a reaction, a violence. We can no longer make peaceful, calm art, because we have lost the ability to do that. That is why we still fly to old art like moths to a light, because it is a rarity for us to think like that now, to imagine ourselves making serious calm art and not be laughed at afterwards. Bacon is raw and dirty, so is Joseph Beuys, but he is also a fucking lunatic!! You gotta love his "how to explain pictures to a dead hare" piece. Back to Bacon - his figures are self-conscious! Anyone else noticed that? I never have, until I read it on the wall and I realized that's so true.. As if his figures know they are in a painting, and don't want to be seen or stared at. How amazing is that?

Now abstract art. It's a hard thing to think about because there isn't much to think about really. * I like Dubuffet *I like when abstract and perspective collide.
I saw Newman and went crazy again (art history classes) but I also saw Clyfford Still's "1953" and I still like it. I liked it when we studied it, and I still enjoy it.

It has something different than all those other abstract expressionists, like Rothko is not so impressive really. Then there was a whole room of the artist Victor Pasmore. Who ever heard of this guy???

Kandinsky doesn't interest me in the slightest, is that bad? Or Andre Derain. Btw, his portrait of Matisse reminds me of Russian poet/my Dad's friend (?) Purin.

The last part I saw was "States of Flux" aka cubism, futurism, vorticism, etc. I was mostly brief here. Lichtenstein - never been a fan. And then "CUBISM IS SO BORING" hahaha... Cubism is too sterile to be an art. It's so mechanical and has no feeling in it, which is what they were going for, but it doesn't mean it was a good idea. I don't think art can be without the slightest emotion/something that moves you. It doesn't necessarily have to be screaming and crazy, but cubism .... I look at it and move on. It's not interesting to the eye, it's not very varied, it's not exciting with the brush work or any of that, it's just plain. Cubism has become an even bigger cliche than impressionism.

There was a room full of Soviet propaganda posters, literally from the floor to the ceiling!! It made me smile. Some of them are really genius. I loved how they did the Andy Warhol room - everywhere else in the museum the walls are white, just like anywhere else. Here they put this crazy wallpaper thing which is a Warhol print of a pink cow on a yellow background, repeated many times, so you walk into this neon bright room full of staring cows! Brilliant I think. I still like Rosenquist, and I still love Oldenburg. Op Art will never get boring and I enjoy Modigliani.

The last bit of writing has nothing to do with Tate Modern. "Walking on the Millenium Bridge afterwards I saw a sunset worthy of Turner's palette". Some people know that I am obsessed with Turner, especially his colors. Seeing something out of his painting in real life made me all happy and dazed.

It was a little bit like this.

And that is that. I love love love love love museums. It gives me more food for thought that anything else could ever do. Expect a follow up from Tate Britain and others (maybe).