I went to the Museum of Contemporary Art finally! (in Chicago... obviously cause that's where I live)
Overall... not actually too bad! I really liked some of the exhibits and they have some iconic paintings that I really enjoyed looking at. Also: I felt incredibly smart when I was approached by two elderly ladies who asked me if I can tell them a little bit about Chuck Close. I was like... YES my time to shine. Because as much as I struggled all throughout art history in college, all that information really stuck to my brain, and now I can show off my slightly useless knowledge! Anyway... bragging aside, here is what I liked/found interesting:
"First 50": this is an exhibition of the first 50 artworks that came into MCA's collection. It had quite a range, from Ed Paschke to Chuck Close to Enrico Baj and so on. I have a soft spot for Ed Paschke, I am not going to lie. I share his interest in collecting images from all printed visual media, and I am really fascinated by how he transformed television type of visual imagery into painting... it translates so well. I remember the first time I came across one of his works, I had no idea who he was or what he was about, but immediately thought: wow this artist works from television imagery... and I was so right. His colors are bright and slightly off-putting by being so "commercial" and "likeable" at first glance. But then the more you look at the colors, the more you realize how sickly disgusting they are and how well they fit the overall theme. I do love Ed Paschke.. so please don't judge me on that. I know in some art circles he is listed with the likes of Jeff Koons but in my mind they are millions of miles apart.
Apart from Ed Paschke, I also really liked Enrico Baj, who I don't think I've ever seen before in real life, and Gladys Nilsson.
"Phantom Limb: Approaches to Painting Today": the title is pretty self-explanatory, but I would just like to mention that they are exploring why painting is always believed to be a dying artform, and it always comes back to bite you in the ass... because painting will never die out, and this exhibition is looking at ways that painting is evolving, which is part of the reason why it will never die. Of course, this is my cup of tea.. because painting is my life. I don't just like to paint.. I have to look at it, examine it, I love going to a museum and looking at the thickness on paintings, how they were painted, look for imperfections, brushwork... and so on. Anyway, my latest obsession is finding out little known AbEx painters, partly because that's what I do in my internship, and partly because I have a new found love for abstract painting.
First of all.. they had a Rauschenberg! This one to be precise: "Retroactive II" from 1963:
Overall... not actually too bad! I really liked some of the exhibits and they have some iconic paintings that I really enjoyed looking at. Also: I felt incredibly smart when I was approached by two elderly ladies who asked me if I can tell them a little bit about Chuck Close. I was like... YES my time to shine. Because as much as I struggled all throughout art history in college, all that information really stuck to my brain, and now I can show off my slightly useless knowledge! Anyway... bragging aside, here is what I liked/found interesting:
"First 50": this is an exhibition of the first 50 artworks that came into MCA's collection. It had quite a range, from Ed Paschke to Chuck Close to Enrico Baj and so on. I have a soft spot for Ed Paschke, I am not going to lie. I share his interest in collecting images from all printed visual media, and I am really fascinated by how he transformed television type of visual imagery into painting... it translates so well. I remember the first time I came across one of his works, I had no idea who he was or what he was about, but immediately thought: wow this artist works from television imagery... and I was so right. His colors are bright and slightly off-putting by being so "commercial" and "likeable" at first glance. But then the more you look at the colors, the more you realize how sickly disgusting they are and how well they fit the overall theme. I do love Ed Paschke.. so please don't judge me on that. I know in some art circles he is listed with the likes of Jeff Koons but in my mind they are millions of miles apart.
Apart from Ed Paschke, I also really liked Enrico Baj, who I don't think I've ever seen before in real life, and Gladys Nilsson.
"Phantom Limb: Approaches to Painting Today": the title is pretty self-explanatory, but I would just like to mention that they are exploring why painting is always believed to be a dying artform, and it always comes back to bite you in the ass... because painting will never die out, and this exhibition is looking at ways that painting is evolving, which is part of the reason why it will never die. Of course, this is my cup of tea.. because painting is my life. I don't just like to paint.. I have to look at it, examine it, I love going to a museum and looking at the thickness on paintings, how they were painted, look for imperfections, brushwork... and so on. Anyway, my latest obsession is finding out little known AbEx painters, partly because that's what I do in my internship, and partly because I have a new found love for abstract painting.
First of all.. they had a Rauschenberg! This one to be precise: "Retroactive II" from 1963:
I really enjoyed Sergej Jensen, he uses a variety of different materials to paint on, which creates interesting new textures. His palette is very subdued but it has a calming and reassuring effect. Here is one of his works I found on another gallery's website, "Untitled" from 2010:
Isn't it just beautiful? Finally, this is not something I like but this struck me like lightning.. in the middle of the room I found a Josh Smith and it reminded me of my Intro to Art class in college... when we had to incorporate the word "CAT" into an artwork and the image of a cat, but make it inconspicuous. I think that idea comes from Josh Smith's work including his initials.
"Rashid Johnson: Message to Our Folks": This is very "conceptually loaded". He uses a lot of shared experiences and references by constructing artwork from his everyday objects. He is exploring the past and the culture he comes from, but to me it's just something a lot of artists do... and I am not so sold on this idea. For me art is escapist, it is imaginary, it is not your therapist that tells you to dig deeper into your roots to find the core of your problems. I don't really enjoy when art is based on the everyday, when art is given a very direct concept with little room for interpretation. Having said that, I did enjoy some of the works by Johnson, especially all the broken mirror works and the combination of black and gold is very visually appealing. So my question is.. should an artist have a face, a name, an ethnicity, a context background? Should an exhibit have an explanation? I think I would have enjoyed this a lot more if I didn't read what this exhibition was about before or even after seeing it.
Molly Zuckerman-Hartung: Quite interesting abstract art. I didn't like the works where she had the canvas (?) hanging in strips between paintings, but I liked some works such as "Victorian Sex Painting":
New York School: Always a classic of course, focusing on late 40s and 50s, with some amazing works by Rothko, deKooning, Kline, etc. Since I changed my mind about Rothko, this is the first time I've seen it up close and personal. Before, Rothko was one of my least favorite artists from that era but now that I really like his work, I was blown away by the work presented here, which is "Untitled" from 1969 that hasn't been on display since 1996! What! I know, why would they hide a gem like this one. Sorry for the seriously bad quality photo here, I couldn't find a better one online:
I was really not impressed with Esteban Vicente.. honestly he slightly reminded me of Cezanne.. I don't like Cezanne. Philip Guston on the other hand really interested me, because I have not seen a lot of his works in real life, and they really are quite beautiful and playful. I have to say I was disappointed in deKooning because I used to really enjoy his works, but now I getting sick of his "I am an abstract painter but I am gonna stick a figure in here anyway" approach. And as much as I am not a fan of Barnett Newman, the painting they had on display called "Galaxy" made me stare at it for quite a few minutes. When you imagine that the strip of brown is our lifetime in the vastness of the red unknown cosmos, it makes your head swirl a little bit. This is why abstract painting is so incredibly complex and can really take your breath away... you can pretend it's anything in the world, it is imaginative and structurally diverse.
"Skyscraper: Art and Architecture Against Gravity": I don't have much to say... I am not into buildings that much, and I know that the Skyscraper is iconic but to me it's just another one of those concept-ridden art things that best left to interpretation than solid themes. I did enjoy seeing Westermann's "Memorial to the Idea of Man if He was an Idea" because I remember studying it in art history and laughing... And I actually kind of enjoyed Roger Brown's comic-book lookalike story-telling fresh solid paintings, although not in a serious kind of way. This is "Ablaze and Ajar" from 1972:
I also kind of liked Marie Bovo's two photographs, "Cour Interieure 29 Avril 2009" and "Cour Interieure 19 novembre 2009" because they were simply aesthetically beautiful.
