|
|
MODERN ART NOTES
Tyler Green's modern and contemporary art blog
Photos that interest me: Lee
Russell Lee. Acetylene light in Cajun farm home near Crowley, Louisiana. Ignition of acetylene gas is accomplished by flints which are integral in the fixture, 1938.
Early in the 20th century acetylene gas light was one of many sources of light for domestic use. It was a fleeting technology. Unreliable and dangerous, it was eventually replaced by electric light. When Lee, an FSA photographer best known for his series chronicling San Augustine, Texas and Pie Town, New Mexico (previously on MAN), took this picture in 1938, acetylene had long been obsolete—but was still in use in rural Crowley, La.
|
The Gugg: Odds & ends
Some odds-and-ends that didn't make it into the NYO piece...
- In 2004, the Guggenheim spent over $2M on acquistions, including major pieces by Matthew Ritchie and Rirkrit Tiravanija.
- The Gugg's NYC exhibition calendar is pretty much filled through 2008. (That's pretty typical for a major museum.)
- Dennison on collecting: Most good museums collect in line with their exhibition schedule in this way: They launch exhibitions that highlight their collections and the strength of their exhibitions. (Best example: The Walker Art Center.) Dennison says that we should instead expect the Gugg's collecting to be inspired by/to follow the museum's exhibitions.
- Whitney boss Adam Weinberg made a good point about the ethically questionable shows that we've seen around the country: "I think the exhibitions you're talking about for the most part are design-related exhibitions, and therefore those exhibitions -- be it Armani or Motorcycle or Chanel or whatever -- obviously the potentials for this kind of ambiguous relationship is greater. Our purview is different in terms of our mission. While we have done occasional design-related shows, it's really for the most part not within the purview of what we do."
posted by tylergreendc @ Wednesday, September 28, 2005 | Permanent
link |
Belatedly on Hoving
Nota bene: Me in the New York Observer on Tom Krens' influence and Lisa Dennison's intentions.
I promised more on the LAT's Tom Hoving op-ed yesterday, but got so work-slammed that I didn't have a chance. So on the Hoving:
Are you kidding me? Tom Hoving as cultural heritage preservationist? Hahahahahah! I'm not going to go through the whole piece, but consider the most obvioius bit of hilarity: Hoving says he's a "good boy" in the "antiquities game" because:
"My track record as a curator and then director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York went from being a rabid collector, willing to grab anything even if I suspected it had been smuggled, to a reformer who helped draft the landmark 1970 UNESCO convention against the worldwide smuggling of cultural patrimony."
So Hoving was a good boy for what, about 18 months? Because in 1972, Hoving was the central figure in the somewhat scandalous Euphronius affair (many links to the fascinating story here). So two years after he started being a "good boy," he let his "bad boy" self get the best of him when there was a krater he wanted. Puh-leeze. If there's one person from whom the Getty should not be taking advice on looting issues, it's Tom Hoving.
posted by tylergreendc @ Wednesday, September 28, 2005 | Permanent
link |
NYO: From Krens to Dennison
Me in the New York Observer on Tom Krens' influence and Lisa Dennison's intentions:
Under Mr. Krens, the Guggenheim seemed less interested in being locally vital than in being marginally relevant globally. The Guggenheim’s hoped-for and actual satellite expansion into Las Vegas, Berlin, Bilbao, Rio de Janeiro, Singapore, Guadalajara, Mexico and Taichung, Taiwan, received more attention than virtually anything the Guggenheim did on Fifth Avenue.
Those mostly-failures will be an afterthought. Bilbao is a lovely building, but it's a one-off. No American not-for-profit museum has found a way to make satellite expansion work—ultimately not even the Guggenheim. Bilbao is less an example of Mr. Krens’ success than an exception to his failure. Ms. Dennison’s tenure will be measured entirely by what she does—or doesn't do—in New York.
Related: MoMA curator Steven Higgins raises the MoMA flag on Pixar. I respond with the MAN flag. (And it's good that it ended there because this 'flag' thing is confusing.) And Greg.MoMA has a Dennison memory.
posted by tylergreendc @ Wednesday, September 28, 2005 | Permanent
link |
Aphrodite and the Getty's tangled web
I think that if I were Barry Munitz, I'd cancel my subscription to the LA Times. (Whoops! Already done!)
In case you missed this morning's boldface link, the LATers Jason Felch and Ralph Frammolino have exposed the Getty's massive and likely purchase/acceptance of looted Italian art objects. As regular readers know, I like to poke fun at some of the more absurd aspects of the Munitz regime. Now is not the time for jokes.
What does this morning's LAT story mean? Some thoughts:
- Before Michael Brand has the opportunity to put his stamp on his new museum, he will be in the unenviable position of having to deal with issues generated by long-serving curator Marion True and previous directors/Trust bosses. Yikes.
- At the moment this is a Getty-Italy issue. Is there a point at which this becomes a U.S-Getty-Italy issue? Sure seems like we're nearing that point.
- At the directorless Cleveland Museum of Art, folks are probably a little nervous about the possibly-Praxiteles that it scored last year. There were questions around that piece before all this.
- Pretty much all of the characters mentioned in the LAT story are familiar antiquities figures with, uh, interesting pasts. On the occasion of the King Tut show at LACMA, I re-read Tom Hoving's memoir of his years at the Met. Bob Hecht is portrayed as being soaked in, er, interesting antiquities.
- The Getty is using a form of the (kinda) Hoving Defense: If New York loves the Euphronius, buying it was not felonious.
Related: Recent Times stories on the Getty.
Update: Speaking of Tom Hoving and Bob Hecht, a reader helpfully points out that Artnet has the relevant Hoving-on-Hecht-and-the-Euphronius memoir excerpt, "The Hot Pot," archived: Part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
|
The weekend (ago) that was
Nota bene: The LAT has another major, major, major Getty story. Don't miss it. More on MAN later today after I make (at least) one writing deadline.
I was just in NYC for the second full weekend of the fall arts season. Naturally, the inevitable conversation-kickoff among artfolk was: "Seen anything good?" The inevitable answer was: "No, not really. Well, I suppose there's the Sue Williams show."
Therefore I was looking forward to the Sue Williams show -- but only in the way you look forward to Alka-Seltzer after a bad burrito.
I can review the Sue Williams show in three words: "Gaping and spurting," and leave it at that. (If you want expansive: picture a Philip Taafe boinking a Keith Haring.) Nothing else was much better. The Joel Sternfeld show at Luhring -- which I thought might be fantastic -- was less a photography exhibit than a presentation of college-level essays. At Petzel, I saw beer cans with dicks.
If New York is the capital of the art world, the place to see the newest and best, then I want to go into exile. If you're one of those New Yorkers who thinks that New York is all that matters art-wise, go walk through Chelsea right now and get back to me. It is possible that there are more art galleries in Chelsea than there are good artists... in the world.
Did I see anything good? Yes. The Carla Kleins are the highlights of a strong group show at Tanya Bonakdar. (Klein is featured in BAMPFA's Matrix series right now. And pssst, Tanya: The Klein images on your website are horrid.) New Found Land at Priska Juschka featured a bunch of interesting takes on landscape in art. DCKT's Isidro Blasco is playing with new media, which is neat-o. (Disclosure: DC and KT are pals; I did their summer show.) And Sixtyseven's Generica show is an appropriately goofy show about girlhood and the silliness of American pop culture. That's it.
There was nothing new in the Yoshitomo Nara show at Boesky or in the Sol LeWitt show at Paula Cooper, but I appreciated the comfort food. The Marcel Dzama show at Zwirner was also more of the market-driven same, but with a naughty streak. All were OK exhibs that were made to move known commodities. Yawn.
And I also saw Bud cans with dicks.
Which brings us to Jerry Saltz' Babylon VI. I could nitpick a few of Saltz' lines, but I agree with all of his thinking. New York is deathly dull. The market reigns at the expense of everything else. Saltz isn't sure what the answer to that is, but offers a couple of alternative spaces as possibilities. As Bruce Springsteen would say, that's kind of a nice romantic idea. I'm a little skeptical of it. But I don't have anything better to offer. Instead I think this is the norm: Gallery-crawls as needle-hunts in the haystack of New York.
Related, a selecton of blogs on Babylon VI: PORT, Astromen!, Edward Winkleman, abLA, Art For a Change, The OC Art Blog.
NEWLY related: The ubiquitous Jerry Saltz opines about his first fall Chelsea crawls.
|
Around the blogosphere
I posted almost 2,000 words yesterday (of course, several hundred of them were written by someone else), so I'm heading out of town. Read some other folks today!
|
A Friday hush
I posted almost 2,000 words here yesterday -- on top of an already-dense MANweek. To make up for it, I'll post very few words here today (well, that and I'm on travel). If you wanna catch up, just scroll down...
posted by tylergreendc @ Thursday, September 22, 2005 | Permanent
link |
MoMA Responds on Pixar
I'm often happy to publish viewer mail. (Especially when the writer disagrees with me.) This came in this afternoon:
Dear Tyler,
In today's "Modern Art Notes" you asked the question "Does Pixar have any relation to the ideas and the art that gave birth to MoMA at its founding?" The answer is a resounding "yes." MoMA's Department of Film and Media was founded in 1935 and has, from its inception, been committed to the collection, preservation, exhibition and study of film as an art form. One of the Museum's first annual reports stated: "Modern art is not confined to painting and sculpture" and that "art of the motion picture is the only great art peculiar to the twentieth century" -- a view supported by Alfred Barr and his successors, down to the present.
An important part of this tradition is the Museum's long history of presenting animated film programs and gallery exhibitions. Since 1940, MoMA has presented many stand-alone gallery shows of animation art (cels, drawings, storyboards, etc.) by Walt Disney, Warner Bros., and independent producers such as the Hubley Studio. The Pixar exhibition continues this tradition and ackowledges computer-generated animation as the latest example of the genre's contribution to moving image art.
The Museum of Modern Art has always maintained complete curatorial independence in every exhibition it has mounted and Pixar is no exception. The notion that Pixar's box-office success should preclude MoMA from doing such an exhibition, or that Pixar animation represents a betrayal of Alfred Barr's founding principles is simply wrong and demonstrates a lack of knowledge about the Museum's history and mission.
Sincerely yours,
Steven Higgins
Curator
Department of Film and Media
Me: Mr. Higgins suggests that I wrote that any film/media/etc. show is outside MoMA's purview. My comments were specifically about the forthcoming Pixar exhibition, not the validity of film/media/etc. programs at MoMA in general. Also, I do not consider the Pixar show to be on par with the Armani show, and I probably should have made that clearer. With regard to Barr's writings, I think it is to Barr's credit that 75 years after he put typewriter-key to paper, his words still speak for themselves.
posted by tylergreendc @ Thursday, September 22, 2005 | Permanent
link |
Freudenheim on MFAB
In Tuesday's WSJ, former assistant secretary for Smithsonian Museums Tom Freudenheim wrote about the Bill Koch egoxhibit at the MFA Boston. (Reminder: Bill Koch is tops with us! He's awesome!)
I haven't seen the show, but since Freudenheim is a MANeighbor, I want to address a couple of points he made about the principle of the show. (OK, that's not the only reason.)
Freudenheim: There are some legitimate questions to ask about a museum presenting an exhibition of works that may or may not end up in its permanent collections -- but isn't that a problem that engages a lot more museums than just Boston's?
Me: Yes. That doesn't mean that MFA Boston should get a free pass for puffing up a collector/donor with a show that is more about courting him than it is about showing art. Vanity shows also can increase valuations of items in private collections, and museums should not make a practice of being used as a potential conduit between collector and market. The Orange County Art Museum and the Minneapolis Institute of Arts are doing the same thing right now. That they are -- and should not -- does not mean that MFAB boss Malcolm Rogers' ethics are any purer. (Aside to OCMA: That Flash intro drives me crazy. Dump it.)
Freudenheim: We would do well to focus attention on the exhibition itself -- not on the MFA's somewhat inept hype ("one of America's great collectors") and the media's continuing outrage at what they claim are the director's excesses (e.g., letting a wealthy collector "park" his boats on the museum's front lawn).
Me: Uh, gee, that would be me. I disagree with that entire sentence. A museum's practices are absolutely fair game for criticism. They get tax breaks from every American, and most major museums get some form(s) of public subsidy. As far as the MFA's hype... how a museum chooses to present itself and market itself to the public says a great deal about that museum. That presentation is absolutely worthy of discussion and, where warranted, outrage.
Freudenheim writes throughout as if the issue of the show was what Koch collected. ("Some visitors might be puzzled by what may seem a disorganized way of accumulating things...") I think it's not. It's what MFA Boston is exhibiting.
posted by tylergreendc @ Thursday, September 22, 2005 | Permanent
link |
On Tom Krens' Legacy
 Plans change in the j-biz. So this is a preview of what I bleev will run in a New York publication next week. (Longer version upcoming.)
Thomas Krens’ 17-year reign as director of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum is over. Starting on October 1, the Guggenheim’s deputy director and chief curator, Lisa Dennison, will take over the museum. (Krens, who had been the director of the Guggenheim Foundation as well as the museum’s director, will continue to run the Foundation.)
With Krens’ departure, so ends one of the most remarkable tenures of any museum director in American history. He drew down the museum’s endowment to pay for operating expenses, contributed mightily to the blockbusterization of museum exhibitions, engaged in questionable deaccessioning-related accounting, and built the Guggenheim Bilbao, which helped usher in an era of destination architecture. In the end, Krens’ most lasting legacy is this: He made the creation of synergies between non-profit art museums and for-profit corporations acceptable to his peers. More than anything else, that’s made him the most influential museum director in America.
(Oh, and that building-the-Guggenheim-brand thing about which Krens so loved to talk? The hoped-for and actual satellite expansion of the Guggenheim into Las Vegas, Berlin, Bilbao, Rio de Janeiro, Singapore, Guadalajara, Mexico, and Taichung, Taiwan? Those (mostly) failures will be an afterthought. Bilbao is a lovely building, but it’s a one-off. No American not-for-profit museum has found a way to make satellite expansion work – ultimately not even the Guggenheim. Nor will they.)
Krens’ coziness with big business dates back to at least 1998, when the Guggenheim launched “The Art of the Motorcycle.” The show was sponsored by bike manufacturer BMW, which also gave Krens a motorcycle. (Krens returned the bike several years later.) Later, Krens became friendly with Giorgio Armani, who gave $15 million to the museum just as the Guggenheim launched an Armani retrospective. In ensuing years, Krens launched spectacle-driven shows filled with objects from Brazil, Mexico, and now Russia. Those shows existed primarily to help the Guggenheim build relationships with corporate interests in those countries – usually countries in which Krens wanted to build Guggenheim satellites. None of the exhibitions have had more than a tangential relationship to the Guggenheim’s collection or to its history.
Krens also explored starting a for-profit, Guggenheim-originated e-business, “Guggenheim.com.” (According to the New York Times, the project drew $20 million in investments.) The company, of which Krens would have been the chief executive officer, was to digitally unite the museum collections of the Guggenheim, the State Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg, Russia, and the Kunsthistorisches museum in Vienna. He wasn’t just willing to bring big business into his museum, he wanted to make parts of his museum into a private business.
Initially, other museum directors blasted Krens, criticizing the way a not-for-profit art museum was willing to allow corporations to seemingly dictate parts of the Guggenheim’s program. “They’re after the money,” Philippe de Montebello, director the Metropolitan Museum of Art, said about one of Krens’ deals. de Montebello and Museum of Modern Art director Glenn Lowry both contributed pointed essays to the book “Whose Muse?” a substantially anti-Krensian compilation of essays by museum directors.
Then something changed. Lowry and de Montebello, turned from criticizing Krens to copying him. And plenty of other museum directors have too. Here is where Krens’ influence is at its clearest and most pervasive.
 On December 14, Lowry’s MoMA will launch an exhibit torn from the Krens playbook: a retrospective of Pixar films and art. Flashback to Whose Muse?, in which Lowry wrote: “[The Guggenheim] has focused its energies on becoming an entertainment center and appears to be no longer interested in or committed to the ideas and the art that gave birth to the museum at its founding.”
Does “Pixar” have any relation to the ideas and the art that gave birth to MoMA at its founding? No. MoMA was founded in 1929. Its first director was Alfred Barr. On the occasion of MoMA’s creation, Barr wrote that MoMA would be the anti-Met, that it would show art “still too controversial for universal acceptance.”
Pixar’s six films have brought in a combined $3.2 billion in worldwide box office, making their acceptance uncontroversial and universal. Lowry has embraced the “entertainment center” model he derided. So much for founding principles. “Pixar” is nothing more than a Krensian corporate kiss.
In the same essay, Lowry wrote that museums must have a “willingness to distinguish between art and fashion, between the circulation of ideas and their commercial exploitation.” One way art might be commercially exploited is this: Works of art owned by a corporation might be loaned to a museum to create an exhibit with that corporation’s name plastered all over it. The corporation might advertise this exhibit heavily, benefiting from the association with a widely-respected, just-opened art museum. That pretty much describes this past spring’s “Contemporary Voices: Works from The UBS Art Collection.” The show was ‘paid for’ not with a $15 million cash gift, but with the donation of some of the art in the show.
The Met’s de Montebello is also guilty of criticizing Krens only to copy him. This summer, the Met showed a retrospective of fashions from Chanel. The exhibit was sponsored by Chanel. The Met’s annual Costume Institute Benefit Gala was co-chaired by designer Karl Lagerfeld of, yup, Chanel. The Met’s webpage, under a tab marked “educational programs,” directed visitors to a special website for the exhibition. That site was hosted on Chanel.com. Within four clicks of visiting, a visitor was instructed on how to purchase Chanel products. In a rebuke on the op-ed page of the New York Times, art critic Lee Rosenbaum wrote, “[The Met] should be far stricter in drawing the line between scholarly presentation and commercial promotion.” Or as one museum director might have said, “They’re after the money.”
Corporate takeover of gallery space previously reserved for art has been embraced outside of New York as well. Earlier this year in Boston, the Museum of Fine Arts hosted an exhibit of automobiles owned by fashion mogul Ralph Lauren. In 2002, the Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington brought Madison Avenue retail into the museum by exhibiting jewel-studded Judith Lieber handbags. The San Francisco Museum of Modern Art’s 2004 show “Glamour” was little more than a collection of random high-end bling marketed by Jaguar, Prada, and the like.
The zenith of Krensian corporate synergy has come at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, where outgoing director Andrea Rich handed over a building to two entertainment corporations (Arts and Exhibitions International and Philip Anschutz’ AEG Live) and allowed them to launch a for-profit enterprise, the exhibit “Tutankhamun and the Golden Age of the Pharaohs.” The galleries in which the “Tut” is installed are owned by the people of Los Angeles County. By only fronting for corporations, Krens looks better by comparison; at least he didn’t hand over his museum.
Krens’ reign has shown that museum directors no longer need to have an ethical compass. While many of Krens’ peers copied his ‘innovations,’ many more watched and said nothing: The Association of Art Museum Directors never sanctioned, censured, or formally criticized Krens in any way. Which means that Krens’ influence will continue.
posted by tylergreendc @ Wednesday, September 21, 2005 | Permanent
link |
Forget Tom (for a moment), what about Lisa?
While I'm on a writing break (otherwise known as: waiting for my all-knowing editor to get back to me on my copy), a thought on the ascension of Lisa Dennison to the GuggenThrone:
I've heard the same thing in email all day. It's come from Gugg staff and ex-staff, and from art people at other museums and such. Everyone is seizing on this paraphrase from this morning's NYT write-up: "As director, she said, she hopes to bring more prominence to the museum's 19 curators while overseeing the content and presentation of the exhibitions."
Everyone, me included, likes the sound of that. Here's hoping that Dennison's exhibits will be GuggenCurator-driven, not factors-outside-the-building-driven.
Related: From the Floor.
posted by tylergreendc @ Wednesday, September 21, 2005 | Permanent
link |
Tom Krens' legacy
It is not a new question: What role should corporations have in America’s art museums? Museums have debated that issue since at least 1998, when the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum launched “The Art of the Motorcycle.” Back then critics derided the Guggenheim’s relationship with BMW, which both sponsored the show and gave Guggenheim director Thomas Krens a motorcycle. (Krens returned the bike several years later.) Undeterred, Krens became friendly with Giorgio Armani, who gave $15 million to the museum just as it launched an Armani retrospective. Museum directors bluntly criticized the way a not-for-profit art museum was willing to allow corporate considerations to seemingly dictate parts of the Guggenheim’s program. “They’re after the money,” said Philippe de Montebello, director the Metropolitan Museum of Art, about one of Krens’ deals. De Montebello and Museum of Modern Art director Glenn Lowry both contributed pointed essays to a book, “Whose Muse?” that derided Krensian practices.
Now, just a couple years after their most pointed criticisms, Lowry and de Montebello have backtracked. A look at the recent exhibition calendar indicates that the Krensian focus on synergies with corporations is winning out. Krens’ museum-director critics have become imitators.
Lowry’s mimicry of Krens is particularly disappointing. In an essay that appeared in the collection Whose Muse?, Lowry wrote against Krens’ methods: “[The Guggenheim] has focused its energies on becoming an entertainment center and appears to be no longer interested in or committed to the ideas and the art that gave birth to the museum at its founding.”
But on December 14, Lowry’s MoMA will launch an exhibit that screams ‘entertainment center:’ a retrospective of Pixar films and art. To use the guideline that Lowry used in condemning the Guggenheim: Does a Pixar show have any relation to the ideas and the art that gave birth to MoMA at its founding?
No. MoMA was founded in 1929. Its first director was Alfred Barr. On the occasion of MoMA’s creation, Barr wrote that MoMA would be the anti-Met, that it would show art “still too controversial for universal acceptance.” Fast-forward to 2005. Pixar’s six films have brought in a combined $3.2 billion in worldwide box office, making their acceptance universal and uncontroversial. Lowry too seems rather eager to wander from his museum’s founding principles.
The Pixar show won’t be the first time Lowry has refashioned MoMA into a drywalled corporate hospitality tent. In the same essay, Lowry wrote that museums must have a “willingness to distinguish between art and fashion, between the circulation of ideas and their commercial exploitation.” One way art might be commercially exploited is this: Works of art owned by a corporation might be loaned to a museum to create an exhibit with that corporation’s name plastered all over it. The corporation might advertise this exhibit heavily, benefiting from the association with a widely-respected, just-opened art museum. Earlier this year, in fact, MoMA hosted just such an exhibit: “Contemporary Voices: Works from The UBS Art Collection.” The show was ‘paid for’ not in cash but in donations of art.
The Met’s de Montebello is also guilty of criticizing Krens only to copy him. This summer, the Met has shown a retrospective of fashions from Chanel. The exhibit was sponsored by Chanel. The Met’s annual Costume Institute Benefit Gala was co-chaired by designer Karl Lagerfeld of, yup, Chanel. The Met’s webpage, under a tab marked “educational programs,” directs visitors to a special website for the exhibition. That site is hosted on Chanel.com. Within four clicks of visiting, a visitor is instructed how to purchase Chanel products. In a rebuke on the op-ed page of the New York Times, art critic Lee Rosenbaum wrote, “[The Met] should be far stricter in drawing the line between scholarly presentation and commercial promotion.” As one museum director might have said, “They’re after the money.”
Corporate takeover of gallery space previously reserved for art has been embraced outside of New York as well. Earlier this year in Boston, the Museum of Fine Arts hosted an exhibit of automobiles owned by fashion mogul Ralph Lauren. In 2002, the Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington brought a little bit of Madison Avenue retail into the museum by exhibiting jewel-studded Judith Lieber handbags.
The confluence of corporate interests and exhibitions has reached its zenith at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, where outgoing director Andrea Rich handed over a building to two entertainment corporations (Arts and Exhibitions International and AEG Live) and allowed them to launch a for-profit enterprise, the exhibit “Tutankhamun and the Golden Age of the Pharaohs.” The galleries in which the “Tut” is installed are owned by the people of Los Angeles County. By only fronting for corporations, Krens looks better by comparison; at least he didn’t hand over his museum.
So why is everyone following Tom Krens? Obviously, museums think there’s a publicity and monetary bonanza in such shows, both in attendance and gift shop sales. Still, the Met’s annual budget is over $250 million. To bring in one percent of that total, one exhibit would have to draw 165,000 adult, full-paying visitors who would not otherwise have visited the Met – slightly fewer once gift shop and food sales are factored in. Similar percentages hold true for every other museum and special exhibit I’ve mentioned, save “Tut.” A museum wouldn’t risk its institutional credibility for one percent of its annual budget, would it?
posted by tylergreendc @ Wednesday, September 21, 2005 | Permanent
link |
Breaking news coming from Gugg
MAN has learned that the Guggenheim will make news first-thing tomorrow morning...
UPDATE: Lisa Dennison is the new director of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum. She had been deputy director. Tom Krens relinquishes the title of museum director, but will remain Guggenheim Foundation director.
UNRELATED UPDATE: I just loooove how the Miami Herald has done a longer piece (Thanks ArtForum) on/with Olga Viso, the new Hirshhorn director, than the Washington Post has.
|
Anniversary thanks
I almost forgot all about this: This week MAN turns four years old. Seems like a good time to thank you for reading (and writing in) and making typing this as much fun as it is. As a giant thank you to my readers, I promise to update the right-hand side of the blog sometime this month. Or year.
In a related note, this is the 25th-straight year in which I am not the recipient of a MacArthur Genius award. Congrats to Teresita Fernandez and Julie Mehretu, this year's artist winners.
And if you appreciate MAN being around, do me two favors: Cruise down to the blogroll and click on some blogs you've never read before. Four years ago there were no art blogs, and now there are many of 'em.
Then click here to give (online) to the Katrina Artists Trust Fund, which is organized by the Contemporary Arts Museum, Houston. One hundred percent of money raised will go to artists.
|
Smithson's Floating Island
 For the kind among you who emailed to ask why I hadn't written word one about Robert Smithson's Floating Island (the photo at left, of Scuffy the Tugboat pulling the Island, is by this guy) on MAN, here's why: I wrote about it for today's LA Times. I'm pretty sure I have a few nuggets that no one else has written.
I love the Island. It's proof that conceptual art can be visually engaging, that it can amuse and delight, that objecthood is as important as a smart idea. The Gates was decoration, watered-down earth art. The Island is the full monty. That and it looks cool.
I also love that the Whitney thought wayyy outside the Breuer-box on this. I can't imagine MoMA or the Met doing anything like this. (And no, a parade to Queens is a marketing spectacle, not the realization of a public art project.)
In addition to what's in the LAT, here are some of my favorite notes/observations about Floating Island:
- I don't know that Smithson intended Island to be about entropy (he didn't write about Island and I know of no record of him speaking about it), but at the press unveiling on Friday I saw entropy all around me: the weeping willows were already losing their leaves and fading, one other tree was having its own early fall, the now-obsolete 1907 Erie Lackawanna ferry terminal was directly behind Island as it circled in front of me, the Lincoln Tunnel intake towers (which helped make the Erie Lackawanna ferry obsolete) were just to the south, the outdated, rotting, wooden supports for Pier 46 stuck up out of the Hudson, the sign on Pier 40 read "Depart--nt of Marine and Aviation, City of New York";
- The project team anticipated more problems with the US Coast Guard, but to the USCG the Island is just another barge as long as it has no people and no signage/advertising on it; and
- On a boat in the Hudson with a few photographers, a TV crew, some Smithsonites and Nancy Holt: Holt was quiet at the outset of the boat ride, rarely taking her eyes off of the Island and speaking little;
- For tugboat operator Bob Henry, the only experience that matches this is when he towed a 65-foot rubber blow-up doll through New York Harbor during a Steve Van Zandt-organized rock concert.
Related blogs: TowleRoad with applause and photos, Red Peonies, Smithson and chocolate floating island at Everything and Nothing, good photos at WhatISee, Girlynyc on the joy of randomly discovering the Island floating by, what Island and Battery Park City have in common, on CitySpecific, I Get My Show on the Road loves Bob Henry, the tug guy.
Related others: The NYT has cool interactive features (I know, I'm stunned too), the Whitney has a three-minute video that has a fab time-lapse sequence of the building of the Island, Joao Ribas on ArtInfo, and Flickr.
|
Five things for Monday
Tons of weekend art news, interesting bits, and the like. I guess that's what travelling and not posting on Friday gets me...
- LACMA is deaccessioning 42 pieces, including a Modigliani portrait. All of the funds raised from the deaccessioning auction will go into accessioning. Not even the Modigliani looks very major -- this one seems pretty different from MoMA's sell-off-the-masterpieces practice of recent years.
- The Getty has announced that it will work with the National Trust for Historic Preservation on a post-Katrina project. The Getty Foundation is donating the first $100K into what the two organizations hope will be a $1 million fund.
- The Des Moines Art Center is preparing a 25-30 canvas Cecily Brown survey for 2006. The show will be curated by acting director/senior curator Jeff Fleming. It will travel.
- In this morning's Washington Post, Jackie Trescott publishes a Phillips press release about its fundraising success. For one: Just because the Phillips calls its collection "masterworks" doesn't mean that the Post has to buy into that.
- Farhad Moshiri, an Iranian artist I discussed here, will be speaking at VCU in Richmond on Sept. 29. As soon as VCU has a link up, I'll post it.
|
The return of Babylon
 Like GawkerForum's Brian Sholis, I too bumped into the First Family of Art Criticism while doing the weekend rounds. While Sholis found Jerry Saltz and Roberta Smith in Chinatown, I found them in MoMA's third floor photography galleries. As you can see from the picture on the left, Saltz and I compared notes about what not to miss below 53rd Street. (Summary: Everything is pretty missable, but the weather in Chelsea is lovely this time of year.)
I'll have more on my NYC wanderings later in the week (I'm on deadline at the moment), but the real can't-miss of the fall gallery season is Saltz' annual Babylon column. This one is Babylon VI. (I know when the fall arts season is here not because of how often I run into J & R, but by Babylon.) If you're not familiar with the Babylon series, it's Satlz' summing-up-of-the-New-York-art-world in 850 words or less. This year Saltz discusses the current market-driven scene and what it means for an art scene to be dollars-motivated. I'll be discussing Babylon here later this week.
Related: Me on Babylon V, along with links to all the other Babylon columns, I Get My Show on the Road.
|
On the way to Lightning Field
 Most people who drive from Albuquerque to The Lightning Field drive through Pie Town. ("On the great divide, it's all downhill from here.")
Pie Town is so small that it doesn't make it onto the Census' New Mexico breakdown. Ted Nugent, the rocker-wingnut, is the sponsor of the highway cleanup program on Highway 60, just west of town. And of course, Pie Town has pie. At two different eateries. When I was at Lightning Field earlier this year, my friends and I bought pie and took it to Quemado with us. That was a good idea. You should do that too.
As I was researching a slide show for Slate, I noticed that FSA photographer Russell Lee had made a series of photographs of Pie Town in 1940, including about 70 in color. (The Library of Congress archive has about 171,000 black-and-white FSA/OWI negatives and only 1,600 color transparencies. A show of 70 FSA/OWI color images is on view now at the Library of Congress.) Here are some Pie Town favorites:
- Church, Pie Town, New Mexico
- Jim Norris, homesteader, Pie Town, New Mexico
- Les Thomas, homesteader, Pie Town, New Mexico
- Bill Stagg turning up pinto beans, Pie Town, New Mexico
- Driving calves into the corrall [sic] for roping at the rodeo of the Pie Town, New Mexico Fair
Related: Gallery Hopper.
posted by tylergreendc @ Thursday, September 15, 2005 | Permanent
link |
On the way to Lightning Field
Most people who drive from Albuquerque to The Lightning Field drive through Pie Town, NM. ("On the great divide, it's all downhill from here.")
Pie Town is so small that it doesn't make it onto the Census' New Mexico breakdown. Ted Nugent, the rocker-wingnut, is the sponsor of the highway cleanup program on Highway 60, just west of town. And of course, Pie Town has pie. At two different eateries. When I was at Lightning Field earlier this year, my friends and I bought pie and took it to Quemado with us. That was a good idea. You should do that too.
As I was researching a slide show for Slate, I discovered that FSA photographer Russell Lee had made a series of photographs of Pie Town in 1940, including about 70 in color. (The Library of Congress archive has about 171,000 black-and-white FSA/OWI negatives and only 1,600 color transparencies.) Here are some favorites:
- Church, Pie Town, New Mexico
- Jim Norris, homesteader, Pie Town, New Mexico
- Les Thomas, homesteader, Pie Town, New Mexico
- Bill Stagg turning up pinto beans, Pie Town, New Mexico
- Driving calves into the corrall [sic] for roping at the rodeo of the Pie Town, New Mexico Fair
posted by tylergreendc @ Thursday, September 15, 2005 | Permanent
link |
On the way to Lightning Field
Most people who drive from Albuquerque to The Lightning Field drive through Pie Town, NM. ("On the great divide, it's all downhill from here.")
Pie Town is so small that it doesn't make it onto the Census' New Mexico breakdown. Ted Nugent, the rocker-wingnut, is the sponsor of the highway cleanup program on Highway 60, just west of town. And of course, Pie Town has pie. At two different eateries. When I was at Lightning Field earlier this year, my friends and I bought pie and took it to Quemado with us. That was a good idea. You should do that too.
As I was researching a slide show for Slate, I discovered that FSA photographer Russell Lee had made a series of photographs of Pie Town in 1940, including about 70 in color. (The Library of Congress archive has about 171,000 black-and-white FSA/OWI negatives and only 1,600 color transparencies.) Here are some favorites:
- Church, Pie Town, New Mexico
- Jim Norris, homesteader, Pie Town, New Mexico
- Les Thomas, homesteader, Pie Town, New Mexico
- Bill Stagg turning up pinto beans, Pie Town, New Mexico
- Driving calves into the corrall [sic] for roping at the rodeo of the Pie Town, New Mexico Fair
posted by tylergreendc @ Thursday, September 15, 2005 | Permanent
link |
On the way to Lightning Field
Most people who drive from Albuquerque to The Lightning Field drive through Pie Town, NM. ("On the great divide, it's all downhill from here.")
Pie Town is so small that it doesn't make it onto the Census' New Mexico breakdown. Ted Nugent, the rocker-wingnut, is the sponsor of the highway cleanup program on Highway 60, just west of town. And of course, Pie Town has pie. At two different eateries. When I was at Lightning Field earlier this year, my friends and I bought pie and took it to Quemado with us. That was a good idea. You should do that too.
As I was researching a slide show for Slate, I discovered that FSA photographer Russell Lee had made a series of photographs of Pie Town in 1940, including about 70 in color. (The Library of Congress archive has about 171,000 black-and-white FSA/OWI negatives and only 1,600 color transparencies.) Here are some favorites:
- Church, Pie Town, New Mexico
- Jim Norris, homesteader, Pie Town, New Mexico
- Les Thomas, homesteader, Pie Town, New Mexico
- Bill Stagg turning up pinto beans, Pie Town, New Mexico
- Driving calves into the corrall [sic] for roping at the rodeo of the Pie Town, New Mexico Fair
posted by tylergreendc @ Thursday, September 15, 2005 | Permanent
link |
MoMA, Friedlander, and Katrina
Artnet reports that Lee Friedlander is selling photographs to benefit the New Orleans Musicians Hurricane Relief Fund. Certainly a good cause, and one I've plugged here on MAN. The pictures, on view on MoMA's lobby, can be purchased through Friedlander's New York gallery.
Normally if a museum did something like this I'd go on a rant about it. But I think this is a good idea. I've spent the better part of this week trying to figure out the role of arts institutions (such as museums) in responding to Katrina. It's not an easy question. And while I'm a little uncomfortable with this being a one-person mini-show, especially after MoMA's recent canonization of Friedlander, that's a pretty minor quibble. (Also: The Preservation Hall Jazz Band will play in MoMA's lobby on Saturday, at 4:30.)
Related: Earlier this week I noted the news about the end of Philly's Calder Museum. Artnet had the item last August.
posted by tylergreendc @ Thursday, September 15, 2005 | Permanent
link |
Vanity shows produce vanity billboards
Bill Koch has done it again. We still love Bill. To be reminded how much, scroll down a post or two. But we politely, gingerly, and ever-so-carefully would like to point out that this is what happens when a formerly proud museum institutionally validates a living, lawyer-wielding, ego-filled collector (who is almost certainly a nice, wonderful, Christ-like man).
(Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing a giant Modigliani nude outside my office...)
posted by tylergreendc @ Wednesday, September 14, 2005 | Permanent
link |
Glackens vs. Iranian Art
From time to time I've complained about the NEA/NEH's funding priorities. The federal agencies prefer to fund Shakespeare (because it's soooo hard to find Shakespeare in this country) and American impressionism exhibits because they're safe and because they appeal to the populist end of middlebrow tastes. I've argued that a better use of federal funds would be bringing to America art that exposes Americans to the cultural legacies of people with whom they are unfamiliar. For example: Given current events, shouldn't the feds be funding The Art of Islam or some such show instead of Glackens: Precursor to NutraSweet?
That's exactly what the Brits are doing, as discussed in this AM's NYT.
posted by tylergreendc @ Wednesday, September 14, 2005 | Permanent
link |
Ando's Calder is dead
The Philly Daily News reports that the Calder Museum, which was to be built on Ben Franklin Parkway, is dead. It was to be designed by Tadao Ando and was supposed to be a key component of Philadelphia's cultural tourism plan. (Lots of past tense there, eh?)
This is particularly interesting because the Barnes Foundation is the city's other key component of that plan. Now Philly's bring-culture-to-the-Parkway plan is a one-museum plan.
|
Helping artists post-Katrina
Here's another one of the best post-Katrina ideas: The Contemporary Arts Museum Houston is launching the Katrina Artists Trust, a grant-making fund that will provide financial support for artists in the three Katrina-affected states. The trust will be administered by CAMH, which will underwrite all of the overhead associated with the project. That means that every penny raised will go to artists who want to rebuild studios, purchase new materials, and the like. From that link above you can donate to the fund or apply for information.
UPDATE: The Ohr-O'Keefe collection is safe.
|
The weekend that was
There are a number of art museums in America that distinguish themselves for tomfoolery rather than art. The MFA Boston parks boats out front in service not to art, audience or mission, but to the ego of a collector/donor. The Corcoran puts handbags and playground ornaments on display and calls them art exhibits. I could keep going but I won't. Well, maybe one more:
In Sunday's New York Times, in a quarter page ad, LACMA offered itself as a yenta. "Meet someone new at LACMA," the ad says. To the left of the copy is a cartoon boy-hipster and a cartoon Miss Jane semi-hipster and they're grinning at each other. Marvin Gaye is not playing in the background, but only because the ad is in a newspaper. This is not the first time LACMA has acted like an escort service. After all, for the last few months LACMA has been whoring itself to private companies. God forbid that LACMA would present itself to the public as a place with great art.
 When I wasn't rolling my eyes at LACMA, I had a pretty nice arts weekend. I wandered through two shows at the Corcoran: Paintings from the collection (I'm not giving you the show's title because it's just plain silly) and a Jennifer Steinkamp/Jimmy Johnson collaboration titled Loop. Both are attractively installed -- for all the Corc's problems (and they abound, oh they abound), they sure know how to install a show. The Steinkamp/Johnson is especially well-presented -- it's the first don't-miss at the Corc since 2004's Sally Mann show.
From the bookshelf, I'm reading Rebecca Solnit's fine book on Muybridge. On the heels of my visit to the Corc (and its bevy of American landscape paintings), this passage jumped out at me: "In its epic grandeur, Yosemite had become a national landscape, as Niagara Falls had been earlier in the nineteenth century and the Grand Canyon would be in the twentieth." Solnit isn't talking specifically about art, but she got me wondering: What is the national landscape of the 21st century? I think the answer is the anti-landscape or destroyed landscape. See: what Edward Burtynsky photographs.
|
Architecture critics smackdown
 Can you spot the difference in architecture critics and in editorial judgment?
In the LAT: Architecture critic Christopher Hawthorne goes to New Orleans and smartly examines the rebuilding and/or revival of the city, as well as the future of its distinctive architectural style. Hawthorne took on the big, national story on his beat and did it well.
Meanwhile, In the WP: Architecture critic Benjamin Forgey stays close to home and calls a bit of decorative garnish "one of the more beautiful works of architecture and engineering [Washington, DC] will have seen in its 215-year history... [Had the element in questoin not been approved] the error would have been noticed around the world, for sure." Somehow, I think that's not what the world is noticing right now, Ben.
|
Gallery season starts
Edward Winkleman provides an spot-on attitudinal preview to the fall gallery season, which kicks off tonight. In DC it kicks off tomorrow, with a slew of openings along the 14th Street corridor. (I'm particularly looking forward to this show.)
Posting will probably be light today: I'm finishing up a Katrina-related slide show for Slate. My images will be from before the storm.
|
Hirshhorn: A step in the right direction
About a month ago I complained that the Hirshhorn was planning to charge for access to some of its educational programs. I wrote that this was a preposterous policy: The Hirshhorn is a federal museum with a special obligation to its public. To charge $100/year for access to programs that are a clear part of its mandate is highly objectionable.
So quietly, in just the last few days, this was added to the webpage the Hirshhorn had set up for a Janet Cardiff lecture:
Program and reception are open to Annual Circle Patrons and students with a valid student ID only. RSVP, if attending, by September 19, 202-XXX-XXXX, XXXXX(at)si.edu. To join the Annual Circle, please call the Office of Development at 202-XXX-XXXX. Any remaining seats will be available to the general public 10 minutes before the program begins.
When I asked, the Hirshhorn said that this is not a change in policy, that the museum simply failed to articulate the new rules. Uh, OK... but you think they might have mentioned that to me, the Washington Post or their own staff back when we all objected to the pay-for-listen policy, don't ya? (And MAN can't help noticing that the, er, clarification of the policy comes in Olga Viso's first week as director of the museum.)
This isn't perfect, but it's a step in the right direction. As I've said before, if the Hirshhorn wants to have donor events after public events, that's great and I'm all for it. But even with this clarification, people who pay extra get special access. Congress works that way; should a government art museum stoop to that level? No. One more step to go, Olga. Make it right.
posted by tylergreendc @ Wednesday, September 7, 2005 | Permanent
link |
Katrina update
LAST UPDATED: Noon.
A quick update on some sites we discussed last week. Thanks to the many readers who wrote in with links and information. For information on giving, please click here (Thursday's update) or here (Friday's update):
posted by tylergreendc @ Wednesday, September 7, 2005 | Permanent
link |
Sending press releases to bloggers/critics?
With the fall exhibition season gearing up this week, now is a good time for one of MAN's periodic Advice for Gallerists/PR Types posts. Today: Things to think about before sending me (and other writers/bloggers) a press release or email. Helpful press releases are a very good thing and unhelpful press releases are very, very much not:
- There is almost never a reason to send more than one notice per show. I immediately delete weekly emails/releases. The more email a gallery sends me, the more likely I am to delete everything from them without looking at it. Furthermore, I will mark it as spam, entering the sender into Yahoo's spam database. One Washington gallery is especially notorious -- it seems like I get at least a daily email from them. These emails even come from different people in the gallery, and sometimes one email has been 'jointly' sent by "two" people in the gallery (according to the 'from' line.) Completely unnecessary.
- Do not send me files/releases that are more than 1MB. It clogs up and slows down my email.
- Send an image with (or in) your press release. Send it at 72dpi so it isn't bigger than my memory stick.
- Send your press release as HTML. Not only does downloading and opening a file add another step (which sounds like not such a big deal, but people such as me receive 50 of these things a day), but if there's a virus or something going around I'm just not going to download files from semi-known senders.
- Type a subject line. Tell me what's in the email or what the show is, or I'm not going to open it. See spam/virus concerns above.
- Do not use all caps in show titles, subject lines, or anywhere else. It's ANNOYING.
- Did I mention: One release/email per show.
- Send what you got via email. I read almost none of my snail mail. (Notable exceptions: Hand-addressed notes, catalogues and snail mail with media-friendly conveniences such as CDs or DVDs.) A few museums, such as the Met and the Frick, operate primarily on snail mail. I love both places, but c'mon, get with the century.
- If you follow-up, do so just once. I don't mean to be a crank, but see above about getting 50+ releases/etc. a day.
- Have a link to an updated website, preferrably with images.
- And finally (and, well, not related): Put a bench in your gallery! My feet hurt. Especially if you're in Chelsea, where you're probably the 30th gallery I've hit that day. (You who have done so: You are loved. Seriously.)
|
Gugg fixing its Frank -- the NYC one
I wanted to mention this last week, but blogging Katrina info seemed more immediate. The Guggenheim has begun the process of fixing its NYC building. Sure it's overdue, but at least it's getting done. After reading the Robin Pogrebin account I think that a geeky exhibition on the conservation challenges of Frank Lloyd Wright buildings would be an interesting show for some architecture-specific gallery somewhere.
|
Does anyone like Malcolm Rogers?
Lest ye think I'm the only one carping about Malcolm Rogers abundant misdeeds at the MFA Boston, last Thursday's Boston Globe featured another op-ed about Rogers. It's the Globe's second what-is-he-doing opinion-page piece since July. (By contrast, the Washington Post last ran an op-ed piece about museums or high culture back in, oh, I don't know, 1993?)
There are plain factual problems in the op-ed. Micahel Raysson, president of the MFA's security guards' union, refers to MFAB's "profits." He means budget surpluses. Still, given that MFAB is hosting a show of a donor's catch-all collection and that it has allowed him to park his boats on its front lawn, this rings true:
Having embraced corporate culture, the [MFA] has also taken on some of its worst characteristics. This has become especially evident in the workplace. While museum director Malcolm Rogers and his colleagues in management make huge salaries with large raises, the rest of the museum staff has faced layoffs and cuts in salaries and/or benefits. Scholar curators have found themselves to be expendable pieces of the machine. Many staff members have gone years without a raise. The museum's low-wage security guards are now fighting for their life in contract negotiations.
Related: Artnet's Walter Robinson asks: Is the Museum of Fine Art, Boston lost at sea? And in the LAT, Baghdad-bound Louise Roug gets Rogers to say "One of the things I wanted to do was to unveil the personality of a man of great passions, to help people understand the psyche of a collector." Museum directors apparently have a new job: ego-enabler.
|
Getty follow-up
Thursday Hurricane Katrina and the arts thread here, complete with links on how you can help.
I often like to have a little bit of fun with the management issues over at the Getty, to try to inject some pointed humor at a troublesome situation. Today I just want to read between the lines of the LAT's latest Getty revelation:
- This is the first LAT story to touch the Getty Museum. However the story indicates that the cover-up was a Trust operation, and that Trust boss Barry Munitz even kept details of this from his board;
- This is the first LAT story to reveal divisions on the Getty board. There are at least two board members unhappy at what they weren't told. Last year board member Blenda J. Wilson had this to say to the LAT about her duties as a board member: "I don't need to know until I'm told," she said. "I don't work at the Getty. I'm a board member." Being a good board member consists of more than just watching your CEO's PowerPoint presentations;
- For weeks I've been saying that when the board is finally embarrassed that it will begin to consider what must be done to salvage the Getty's reputation. In the LAT story Barbara Fleischman and Ramon Cortines sound pretty embarrassed. Does Sitrick do damage control with just the press or can they fix things with a board of trustees, too?
|
More Getty troubles
Whoops. The Getty is being selectively cooperative with the Italian authorities that have indicted a Getty curator. And the documents that they didn't turn over sound pretty damning.
The curator, Marion True is facing trial in Italy this fall. She is charged with conspiring to traffic artifacts stolen from Italian ruins, then smuggled out of the country.
The LAT story, by Jason Felch and Ralph Frammolino, features the Getty board in a bit of a public bicker, too! (What, no Louise Roug on the story? Roug has been one of the LAT's Getty aces. She's on her way to Baghdad. For a long tour.)
More on Friday.
|
Katrina and the arts
Friday updates are here.
We're beginning to learn of Katrina's impact on cultural institutions and the like in Louisiana and Mississippi. See below for a list of stories and information resources. If you work at a museum or foundation and your institution is doing something that might inspire others, give others ideas, etc., please email me.
Here's how you can help:
Here's the news:
I've heard little about:
- William Faulkner's Rowan Oak;
- The Ohr-O'Keefe Museum; and
- The Rural Studio (buildings or communities).
|
Back to Beacon (plus)
A MANpal and I recently motored up the Hudson River Valley for some R&R. We took in both Storm King and Dia: Beacon. (Dia is in desparate need of a colectomy.) It was about as delightful weekend as could be. Some random thoughts:
- I loved the Fred Sandbacks. This was my third visit to Beacon. I thought it was my first visit since Sandback committed suicide, and that I was responding to the combination of biography and art. Then I checked the dates I realized I was wrong. In thinking about the Sandbacks since: Sandback makes me think of Anne Truitt too in that both of their work is meditative and that it makes me aware of my position relative to it. I'm still figuring out why the sudden response to them though.
- The Agnes Martin exhib (the second in two years) that is on view until Nov. 7 is bliss, and includes one named painting that reminds you where Martin is from: Wheat. When non-art friends of mine see Martins online they wonder how I can spend 30 minutes in a gallery of 21 paintings (or over an hour here), but once you're there in front of them...
- At Storm King you can look down on Mark di Suveros. And there is empty space around them.
- Dia's Warhol show has an excellent room of death-and-disaster paintings. IMHO those are the smartest Warhols.
- Time for Dia to change up/out: Vera Lutter, Gerhard Richter, Walter De Maria, Joseph Beuys, Blinky Palermo.
| |
|
 |
 |
|
MODERN ART NOTES
|
| |
MODERN ART NOTES home
MODERN ART NOTES archives
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Write
Me:
tylergreendc@yahoo.com
| | | |
FIVE TO SEE |
| | [an error occurred while processing this directive] |
LONGER PIECES |
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
More |
| | |
SITE SEEING
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive] |
| | | |
OTHER AJ BLOGS |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
| | |
| | | |
| | |
| | | |
William Eggleston. Greenwood, Mississippi, 1970s. (
AJ had