Take Henry Matisse, for example. The "bored, rich, white dude that decided to take up painting." Now he's got a museum dedicated to him. The commentary provided for his artwork went on and on about how he really wanted to infuse the colors of the blue, blue Mediterranean sea into his paintings and everything changed substantially after his visit to Tahiti and blah blah blah. I don't know if I buy it. I think he might have just wanted an excuse to stare at naked women all day. (Actually, I really liked some of his impressionism stuff, especially the statues. I love the idea of presenting what you see, not what is visible.)
Or take, for example, the museum of Marc Chagall. The audio tour included with my visit (thank the gods for student discounts!) provided the meaning of every last brushstroke. Do you really think Chagall used the crucifix to represent his father's hat on his 26th birthday, the trials of his people in Belarus, and the end of suffering to the Jews? Or do you think that Chegall, a Jew, was merely including the crucifix because his employers were Christian churches? (Actually, I was baffled and in awe at the incredible woven tapestries he designed. The amount of skill and precision they must have required... Incredible!)
But what gets me even more is that Chegall was actually alive when they dedicated his museum. In fact, he designed the museum and placed his paintings. I would have been fascinated to have him give the audio tour–or at least offer a rebuttal to the current version. What would he have said? Would he have called it a bunch of hogwash?
And then I stumbled across XKCD: explain today and realized that Randall probably has an even harder time. Not only do his comics get critiqued, they often get over-analyzed. And he's STILL ALIVE WHEN THIS HAPPENS. What gets me even more is the discussion section: "And you, sir, are a canonical example of an outlier. Seriously, though, go to http://google.com [hyperlink included, just in case you missed it] and type 'is an acquired taste.'"
Someday when I grow up, I'm going to be a famous artist. And then I'm going to show up in disguise at all the fancy-schmancy art dinners and say, "Oh I heard Nathan talking about how his latest painting entitled 'apple by book' is actually a reference to the Garden of Eden as written in The Bible and in fact suggests that history is a tangled mess to nail down." I'd be the master troll.
 |
| Love from Nice, where the water is blue, the houses are pastel, and you can't help but look away from the camera when you take a selfie. |
Did I ever tell you I love art history? My very good friend is an art historian, and to hear him give a tour at a museum is definitely an incredible experience. At any rate, it's difficult for me to really get into modern art. Impressionism is alright -- I mean, I like Van Gogh and Monet, of course, and Mary Cassatt painted some lovely portraits of mothers and children. But who I really love -- who I really, really truly love in life are the Dutch masters, such as Rembrandt, Vermeer, and Dujardin. I also like paintings of ships and the sea, and Scandinavian painters are great at that. The most famous Scandinavian painters are Impressionists, but I like them better than Degas or Pissarro or Renoir. It's a spectrum, I guess.
ReplyDeleteAt any rate, I don't love Chagall or Matisse. They're a little too late in the Impressionist Movement for me.
Gosh. I could talk about this all day.