Real Clear Arts

Judith H. Dobrzynski on Culture

Media

Art Exhibitions And The Movies: Problems And Prospects

A couple of weeks ago, I had a chat with Phil Grabsky, the British filmmaker who has started “Exhibition: Great Art on Screen,” a series of what he calls “event films” that will bring some of the very best art exhibitions to the public via films analogous to the Metropolitan Opera’s simulcasts (and post-produced filmings of live opera, as La Scala, among other opera companies, does it).

manet-exhibitiononscreenGrabsky made Leonardo Live last year, and I mentioned his new effort in passing here at the end of January, while writing about the opening of Manet: Portraying Life at the Royal Academy in London. His film of the same name as the exhibition premiers this coming Thursday, Apr. 11,  on about 1,000 movie screens in 28 countries, including the U.S. (You can see a list of the countries, with links to the cinemas, here, except, oddly for the U.S., for which you should go here.)

My talk with Grabsky was for an article in The Wall Street Journal published last week. In it, I describe what he’s doing, mention his next two efforts in the series (on Munch in Oslo come Juner and Vermeer, again at the National Gallery in London, in October), and discuss why, although he corrected many of the criticisms about Leonardo Live, he still faces problems inherent to art exhibitions that operas do not have (they already have a narrative). Manet, and his upcoming efforts, however, do have a big plus: those high-definition lingerings on the paintings. As I write in the Journal, “…Mr. Grabsky often holds the camera on a painting, full screen, for as long as 30 seconds. That’s much longer than most people spend with a painting at an exhibit.”

Let me explore that, and a few other issues, here that I couldn’t get into in the Journal piece.

As museum professionals know, most people spend only a few seconds with each painting in an exhibition, and even at the Leonardo exhibition at London’s National Gallery last year (see here and here) — where the NG, trying to avoid what “gallery rage,” rationed the number of timed tickets sold to 180 per half-hour, much lower than its normal limit of 230 entrances per half-hour — officials figured that people spent, on average, just 18 seconds with Leonardo’s paintings, according to Grabsky.

Will these shows succeed, and should they? One editor I work with declined to publish an article on “Exhibition: Great Art on Screen” because, he said, he didn’t want to discourage people from going to see the real thing. Is that a worry? I asked Nicholas Penny, the director of the National Gallery, about that and about why he likes these films. Here’s what he wrote back:

The films can help people understand the work behind an exhibition which in turn promotes awareness of the special character of these events – some of their limitations as well as the unique opportunity they provide. I’m not in the least worried that viewing the films will become a substitute for going to the exhibition.

Me, neither. I think they’ll encourage people to visit museums — afterall, one reason people have switched from the real opera to the simulcasts is the cost differential. For Grabsky’s art movies, the cost is about the same. Second, there’s no way I am going to get to that Munch show this years — the 150th anniversary of his birth — I simply won’t be in Oslo. I suspect I’ll face that same travel barrier for most of Grabsky’s chosen exhibitions.

GrabskyGrabsky told me that most museums are enthusiastic. While not all of those he contacted have agreed to meet, of those that have, he
said, “None has so far said anything but ‘I think it’s a great idea and I want to be part of it.’ ” There is something it for them, aside from exposure: Grabsky plans to share a small percentage of any profits he makes with the exhibition’s museum, though it is very unlikely that dollar number will be substantial. (It will never, imho, reach the Met’s success, which last year the series generated $11 million in revenue for the Met, according to a recent article in the Journal.)

Here’s another reason people may want to watch: changing technology. Grabsky told me that digital camera technology he’s deploying for the Vermeer film is four times as good as the high-definition technology used for Leonardo and Manet.

In any case, Grabsky seems hellbent, a man on a mission. “In the beginning we have to go with big-name artists,” he said. But, he added, “We want to get to a point where people say ‘Exhibition is doing Bernini. I don’t know who Bernini is, but I love Exhibition, so I’m going.’ ”

That would be something.

Photo Credits: Courtesy of Phil Grabsky

 

 

Manet’s Star Rises In London

The Manet portraiture exhibition, which ended recently at the Toledo Museum of Art, has opened in London at the Royal Academy. It’s getting the attention it deserves.

luncheon-in-the-studio-1868For a start, on Jan. 20, The Telegraph reported that “Advance bookings for the show are among the highest in the Academy’s recent history, exceeding sales for its blockbuster Van Gogh exhibition in 2010. Several of the timed slots to see the show have already sold out.”

As a result, the RA is opening on five Sunday evenings from 6:30 to 10 p.m. for an “enhanced” visitor experience with the show. It normally closes at 6 on Sundays, but for  £30 — double the normal £15 adult ticket for Manet — visitors can see the exhibit with a “limited number” of others. Plus, they get a drink, a gallery guide and an audio guide. More details here.

That’s an interesting tact — and I favor it, despite comments from critics who say it’s not democratic. Piffle — variable pricing, I’ve argued (see one 2009 article here) — should come to museums. As I mentioned there, the Metropolitan Museum has charged $50 for access to special exhibits on some Mondays, when it’s normally closed, and in 2006 the Neue Galerie tried to charge $50 on Wednesdays, when the museum is normally open (free) only to members, to see the then newly-acquired Klimt Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I.  Criticism changed the Galerie’s plan, needlessly. I don’t see this as elitist — no one blinks about skyboxes — I see it as experimental and practical.

Second, the Manet is getting some raves. The Independent named it “exhibition of the week.”  Richard Dorment in The Telegraph gave it five stars, though he failed to mention Toledo’s role in the organization and scholarship. The Telegraph has devoted much other space to the exhibition, including this one headlined Did Manet Have a Secret Son?

But there were some pans, or at least mixed reviews. The Guardian said it excelled as a biographical show but pointed out that it included some weak pastels. Brian Sewell in the Evening Standard wrote this (and much more — I encourage you to read the whole thing):

…the Royal Academy honours this singular painter with an exhibition, Manet: Portraying Life, in which 54 examples demonstrate his mischief, his obstinacy, his perception, his borrowings and subversions, his achievements and his failures. Divided into five themes and restricted to portraits and portrayal, it is a little too thin to serve him as well as it should and could, and for newcomers to this Outsider (neither Salonard nor Impressionist) it may not be easy to grasp his progress either to Le Déjeuner sur l’Herbe or from it to The Bar at the Folies-Bergère, the alpha and omega of his major paintings — though in this exhibition the Déjeuner is the much smaller and later version from the Courtauld Gallery and The Bar is omitted from it. It must be said too that at least a dozen paintings and pastels…are bad enough to convince the newcomer that Manet does not merit his reputation as a master….

Well, maybe Sewell is right or maybe he was having a bad day.

On another front, close readers of the comments on RCA already had a preview of this: The Manet exhibition has been selected as the subject of an “event film” that will be shown on cinema screens worldwide, just as Leonardo Live was a year ago. Manet: Portraying Live will premiere at the movies on Apr. 11 in the UK and in about 30 other countries, including the U.S. This time, the producers were not forced to produce a live broadcast, which created silly moments in Leonardo. I expect that this time the result will be much better.

Stay tuned for more details here in the coming weeks.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Neue Pinakothek, Munich

The NYTimes Looks For The Light

Before too much time passes, I want to call more attention to the feature published by The New York Times last Friday headlined Reflections. It was highlighted on Page One with a picture of Edward Hopper’s Rooms by the Sea that was captioned Seeking Out the Bright to Battle the Cold?

Brooklyn_Museum_-_Saint_Joseph_and_the_Christ_Child_-_overallIn it, the Times devoted considerable space to art works chosen by its four main art critics in which the artists captured light, which somehow was intended to help readers take their mind off the cold, dark winter days and the “indoor time still to come.”

I am of two minds. I thought the idea was rather contrived and the execution a tad spotty. Much as I enjoy reading Holland Cotter’s criticism, I found his choice of an Islamic plate, an example of lusterware, to be a stretch. It might brighten my day, but not because of the light. So, too, his selection of Saint Joseph and the Christ Child by an unknown Cuzco school artist, pictured at right — I love the painting but don’t see any reason to single it out for special lighting effects.

The other critics mainly took their assignment more literally, chosing paintings by the likes of Georges de la Tour, Vermeer, Seurat, Hammershoi and Dan Flavin. You can’t quarrel with those calls. Some were “predictable,” but only to people who spend a lot of time with art.

On the other hand, I applaud the Times for devising an article that focused attention on museums’ permanent collections or just on artworks, period, as part of the culture-pages mix. I wish they and other papers looked for more occasions to run art works. Back in 2009, I praised the Nelson-Atkins Museum here for this:

On Dec. 15 — enough time for planning — the PR department sent out an email with the subject line “Need Christmas Art?” and attaching a PDF listing of all the nativity scenes it holds in its collection for which it had high-res images: a dozen in all. 

All of this, of course, is about getting art into the world outside of museums in a way that will encourage people to go see for themselves.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Brooklyn Museum

 

 

 

A Blow to Arts Television: Such As It Is

 Time Warner Cable has delivered a blow to Ovation, the independent arts television channel. 

OvationTVThat’s sad, even though Ovation has never lived up to the expections many had for it in the early ’90s, when J. Carter Brown, the esteemed former director of the National Gallery of Art, agreed to become chairman of the fledgling network. As the New York Times told the story:

“I will be Ovation’s godfather,” said Mr. Brown. “My role will be one of making connections and looking at the quality of the programming.” Dr. Harold E. Morse, founder of the Learning Channel, will be in charge of the day-to-day operations as Ovation’s president and chief executive. The network is based in Alexandria, Va.

The Ovation network will limit itself to art, dance, music, literature and theater. Unlike existing arts networks like Bravo and Arts and Entertainment, it will not show movies.

The debut was set for 1994, but that did not happen until 1996, by which time I had written an article headline, TV Has All But Tuned Out the Visual Arts, and Ovation was not carried by the cable companies in New York City. Somewhere along the way, the channel changed hands, and in 2010, the Los Angeles Times reported that

“…for the last four years a group of investors has been working to establish an oasis for Ovation, an independent channel devoted to art and contemporary culture….Available in only 5 million homes in 2007, the channel now can be seen in about 42 million homes, or nearly half of all cable and satellite households in the country.”

Now, the LA Times is reporting that “Time Warner Cable plans to drop the small Santa Monica-based channel Ovation from its programming lineup at year’s end.” The company issued a statement saying, in part:

Ovation is among the poorest performing networks, and is viewed by less than 1% of our customers on any given day.

That is true even though Ovation has long since expanded the definition of arts to include art-house films, photography, architecture and other “popular” arts. In 2010, the LAT piece quoted experts suggesting that the “long-tail theory” said a small niche channel could do well because a small base of avid fans would keep it going. I always thought the long-tail theory was overblown, and it clearly didn’t work here.

Still, Ovation does continue on other distribution outlets. Time-Warner’s move knocks it out of 7 million homes in one swoop, but about 44 million homes can still watch under service agreements with DirecTV and Comcast Corp, for example.

Ovation has started an online petition to Time-Warner Cable.

Does The Visual Art World Need Sharper Criticism? Yes.

Does the art world need a good hatchet job or two?

That thought crossed my mind when I read A New Honor for the Hatchet Job, on The New York Times website: it outlines a prize, soon to be given by a British website called The Omnivore, which “will be presented to the author of the angriest, funniest, most trenchant book review of the past twelve months.” The point, says The Omnivore, is “to raise the profile of professional critics and to promote integrity and wit in literary journalism.”

It didn’t take me more than a few seconds to click on the link to the eight finalists — all but one published in Britain, and that one — in The New York Times — was by a Brit. Could a shortlist of hatchet jobs for book reviews even be developed in the U.S.? Are our reviews too bland?

More to the point of this post, could anyone make such a list for art criticism? I’m not looking for nastiness — but when was the last time you read a learned, thoughtful, well-argued critique of a museum or gallery exhibition that was negative? Even the negative reviews of the show of spot paintings of Damien Hirst that I saw wouldn’t qualify.

Like The Omnivore, I think a little more sharp, trenchant art reviews by authoritative critics would do the art world some good — particularly in the world of contemporary art, where artists are still alive to respond (or not, as they choose).

The quality of criticism is hardly a new issue. (I wrote about critics’ losing influence myself, back in 1998, for the NYT.) I recall a recent conversation with a theater figure who told me he rarely reads the critics anymore because he no longer learns from them. Sometimes, learning from negative reviews is easier than trying to discern anything at all from positive reviews.

And a hatchet job might get people outside the art world talking about art. Just a thought.