Tyler Green
Art-focused Journalism by Tyler Green

Tyler Green Modern Art Notes

Archive for May, 2009

'Cezanne and Beyond' in Philadelphia

HirshhornHartleyBather.jpgTwo storylines run through the Philadelphia Museum of Art’s ‘Cezanne and Beyond.’ One is obvious: Paul Cezanne was a titan; his work influenced dozens of great artists who came after him. See Cezanne’s trees, see Piet Mondrian’s trees. See Cezanne’s leaves, see Ellsworth Kelly’s leaves and so on. [Image: Marsden Hartley, Canuck Yankee Lumberjack at Old Orchard Beach, Maine, 1940-41. Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden.]

Part of the magic of the show, curated by Joseph J. Rishel, Katherine Sachs and an advisory team, is that it makes those connections surprisingly exciting. The show turns a rote art history march into an exciting physical experience, a kind of Encyclopedia Brown-meets-A Night in the Museum. (Alas: As I noted here, the PMA missed the opportunity to show a generation of Philadelphians how exciting art history can be.)

While that’s the narrative that the museum has encouraged via its ubiquitous marketing campaign, that’s not the only thread that runs through ‘Cezanne and Beyond.’ Ultimately my favorite storyline is the way the exhibition shows how each succeeding generation of artists since Cezanne has accepted him — and hasn’t.

The artists closest to Cezanne’s lifetime — Matisse, for example — absorbed the master’s influence most directly. Cezanne made bathers paintings, Matisse made bathers paintings. But by Ellsworth Kelly, artists had taken a step back from Cezanne. Instead of shaking the master’s hand, they were mostly tipping their hats to him: Here’s a Cezanne landscape, here’s Kelly’s reduction of such down to a blue quadrangle.

Or, to put it another way: It’s riveting to watch each succeeding generation of artists expunge more and more of Cezanne from their work, to see them accept Cezanne as a starting point, but then to reject Cezanne’s subjects, his compositions, his palette, even his medium. The best story in ‘Cezanne and Beyond’ is that influence is as much about elimination as it is about acceptance. Examples in the days ahead…

Related: Part two, part three.

Tuesday links

  • Ellsworth Kelly: Dress designer?
  • How the Albright-Knox got its Frida Kahlo.
  • Brooklyn has reinstalled — and redesigned — its arts of the Islamic world galleries. Here’s how they did it.
  • It is often appropriate to SCREAM!!!
  • Does this Manet belong in Abu Dhabi? Maybe…
  • Leftover from MOCA’s Friday, pre-holiday news-dump release: MOCA is cutting several of the exhibitions chief curator Paul Schimmel told us about in March.

Links and notes on the Hirshhorn's new Rosler

  • Jerry Saltz reviewed the 2008 Rosler exhibition from which the Hirshhorn acquired The Gray Drape. He was disinterested in the relationship between The Gray Drape and earlier Roslers and wrote that Rosler is trying “to turn back the clock to her glory
    days, essentially remaking the Vietnam series.” This morning I wrote about how I think that relationship isn’t just a ‘remake,’ but that its critically important to contextualizing Rosler’s recent work — and the recent events she addresses.
  • (Notes on) Politics…
    is a fan of Rosler’s recent series.
  • Steven Kaplan mostly is too.
  • Also: At least one American museum, SFMOMA, has recently installed art that addresses political issues with a kind of warning label attached.
    These installations at the Hirshhorn have been far more confrontational
    than SFMOMA’s Emily Jacir hanging, yet the Hirshhorn has allowed
    the art to speak for itself. Kudos.

Acquisition: Martha Rosler's 'The Gray Drape' at the Hirshhorn

Rosler3.jpgIn 2004, seven months after CBS’s “60 Minutes” and The New Yorker reported on the torture of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, the American people re-elected George W. Bush. In the five years since, as journalists such as Dana Priest, Jane Mayer, Mark Danner, and Philippe Sands have uncovered the extent to which the Bush administration enabled and encouraged torture, polls have showed that a majority of Americans are shrugging, hoping that the issue will go away, that the errors and even the possible crimes of the Bush years simply might be ignored, forgotten.

The most recent poll to examine whether Bush-era torture policy should be investigated didn’t even use the word “torture.” Instead the polling firm Ipsos asked respondents: “Should there be a bipartisan blue-chip commission to investigate how detainees were interrogated?” Fifty-four percent of respondents failed to favor such a commission. (Journalism organizations such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press are complicit in this logophobia: They avoid using the word “torture,” instead gently referring to ‘enhanced interrogation techniques.” That phrase was originally coined by the Gestapo.) The majority of the American people seem to side with conservative Wall Street Journal columnist and former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan, who recently winced at the release of Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel memos that encouraged torture:

“It’s hard for me to look at a great nation issuing these documents and sending them out to the world and thinking, ‘Oh, much good will come of that.’ Sometimes in life you want to keep walking… Some of life has to be mysterious.”

This national compulsion to look away from recent malfeasance is seemingly custom-made for Martha Rosler, an artist who has spent the last four decades pointing out how Americans’ pursuit of the good life has often blinded us from noticing how our nation has fallen short of its ideals. Rosler’s most recent body of work addressed Americans’ disengagement from the biggest American war since Vietnam: the ongoing conflict in Iraq. The Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden has just acquired and installed a major photomontage from that series, The Gray Drape (2008, above).

RoslerCleaningtheDrapes.jpgThe timing of the acquisition is especially fascinating: The Gray Drape entered the museum’s collection on the same week McClatchy reported that former Vice President Dick Cheney ordered Guantanamo Bay interrogators to find a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, a key link that the Bush administration needed to justify the war it wanted to wage in Iraq. The McClatchy story and ensuing reports add a chill to The Gray Drape: Rosler’s photomontage can be read as revealing how our blindness to and then our national disinterest in Bush-era torture led us into Iraq.

The Gray Drape shows a glamorous woman in what appears to be her bedroom, more interested in her linens than she is in the world outside. The drape she is waving — read: her love of upscale consumerism — appears to be preventing her from noticing the wail of the Iraq War outside. She doesn’t want to know because she doesn’t want to know. The Gray Drape might also be read as an examination of empty patriotism: The woman’s drape-waving movement recalls the way you might see someone wave an American flag at a NASCAR race or at a parade. Of course there is no red, white and blue on Rosler’s flag-proportioned drape, just white, a possible reference to both the moral hollowness of America’s engagement in Iraq and to the jingoism encouraged by many on the right. (Rosler’s 2008 video Prototype (God Bless America) makes a similar point. A still from the work is below. To see an excerpt from the video, click here. An excerpt from Prototype is about two-thirds of the way through.)

RoslerPrototype.jpgRosler has covered some of this territory before, most obviously in Cleaning the Drapes (1967-72, above), which is in the collection of the Museum of Modern Art. By revisiting Cleaning the Drapes so directly in The Gray Drape, Rosler is establishing a parallel between the way America fought in Vietnam and the way it has fought in Iraq. Between 1967 and 1972 — the peak years of American involvement in Vietnam and the years
to which Rosler ascribes Cleaning the Drapes — the United States engaged in the morally questionable spraying of Agent Orange, in civilian massacres such as that at My Lai and in the bombing of Cambodia and Laos. Rosler isn’t just revisiting old work with The Gray Drape, she’s arguing that America’s past conduct is relevant — and that we’ve failed to learn from it.

While Rosler has worked in a variety of media, including video and installation, her choice of photomontage to make work that addresses America’s two most disastrous recent wars is telling. While photomontage was born in the late 19th-century, it was the the artists of the world’s first anti-war movement, Dada, who brought the medium to maturity and who merged photomontage with intense and immediate political content. Rosler seems aware that many Dadaists had personal experiences with the horrors of war — this untitled Max Ernst from 1920 is photomontage-as-autobiography — whereas she doesn’t. Ernst portrayed the battlefield directly. Rosler almost always includes a kind of filter. She hasn’t been there, but she can — and does — examine the way Americans around her experience and address ongoing war (or pointedly fail to, as the case may be). [Image below: Saddam's Palace (Febreeze), 2004.]

SaddamsPalaceFebreeze.jpgThere’s nothing unusual about an artist, especially Rosler, examining her nation’s conduct and its attitudes toward war or instruments of national policy. Artists, like newspaper columnists or historians, have important contributions to make to the national dialogue as our nation grapples with the legacy of the Bush administration’s wars and pro-torture policy. Credit the Hirshhorn, a Smithsonian Institution museum located almost exactly halfway between the Capitol and the White House, for being willing to join in that dialogue and for acquiring work that examines the most difficult aspects of recent American history. Art museums — especially contemporary art museums — have an obligation to be willing to engage, to serve as a bridge between the public and artists. (This is the second time in less than a year that the Hirshhorn has pointedly pushed an artist or a body of work into the discourse.) More museums should follow the Hirshhorn’s example.

Does the AIC really need $250M to go free?

In a Q&A with Time’s Richard Lacayo published yesterday, Art Institute of Chicago director James Cuno addressed what it would take for his museum to go from its expensive, 837-word admissions policy to keeping up with its peer museums by becoming free:

In our case here, we’ve been talking about this, now that we’ve succeeded with our major capital campaign. While there’s still fund-raising to do and endowment loss to make up, I would like us — and we’re just starting to have this conversation here — to have a campaign to endow free admission. What would that take for us? It might take $250 million.

It’s great that Cuno is willing to have this conversation in public. It’s a tacit admission — er, confession — that the AIC’s admissions policy is a train wreck and that the museum considers it important to provide greater public access to the AIC. (In case anyone missed what a disaster the AIC policy has been: Time magazine’s art critic traveled to Chicago for the opening of the AIC’s new Modern Wing and all he asked the director of the AIC about was the museum’s admissions mess.)

But, let’s take a look at Cuno’s $250 million figure. Museums typically pull about five percent from their endowment each year. By that calculation, Cuno is signaling that the AIC would have to cover $12.5 million in ‘lost’ admissions revenue.

Except… last year the AIC brought in $6.9 million in admissions revenue. (That’s a fairly typical recent number for them. In the AIC fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2007 the museum pulled $6.1 million in admissions revenue.)

The amount of endowment necessary to ‘cover’ $6.9 million in admissions revenue could be $138 million — and that’s to go completely free. (It’s certainly possible that the AIC is projecting more admissions revenue this year, but a 55 percent increase would be pretty substantial. And I’m using only publicly available data. Cuno and the AIC may certainly know things I don’t.) The AIC could fix a lot of mistakes — and even zoom ahead of museums such as the MFA Boston — by going back to pay-what-you-will or by cutting admissions by two-thirds, both of which would require substantially less endowment coverage.

Lacayo and Cuno, part two

Part two: AIC director James Cuno and Time’s Richard Lacayo continue to discuss how thoroughly museum admissions costs are out of whack. Cuno admits that the AIC is considering raising endowment funds so it can make admissions free. (Think the AIC is feeling the heat? Uh, yeah.)

That’s a step in the right direction I suppose, but the real question is why the AIC’s most recent fundraising campaigns didn’t have high enough targets to address the rise in operating costs that the AIC says has necessitated the current fees mess? It’s increasingly obvious that the AIC’s many-years-in-the-making mistake was in letting their admissions-fee situation get to this point in the first place. I mean, come on: An 837-word admissions explanation?!? What ever happened to: “Adults $8, Students/seniors: $4.” (Five words.)

(Side note: I don’t know that Lacayo is precisely correct when he says that most free museums receive “targeted subsidies from local government or from corporations or foundations.” There’s obviously a lot of wiggle room there and it’s a tough question to phrase because everyone who does free does it differently. But let’s use Cuno’s example: The Baltimore Museum of Art. As Lacyao notes, Baltimore received grants from city and county government to go free, but now the BMA’s free admission is supported through ‘normal’ fundraising and operations. Other free museums, such as Indianapolis or the Nelson-Atkins receive virtually no government funding. It’s about priorities.)

UPDATE: Oh dear. Not only is the AIC proudly expensive, but it’s eagerly circulating GawkerForum-style party pictures of wealthy AIC backers via Twitter. Talk about tone deaf…

Shuttlecocks (and their curse) turn 15

ShuttlecocksHeadstand.jpgIn all the zillions of words written about public art, one word isn’t written often enough: Fun. This just in: It’s OK when public art is fun. Heck, in certain circumstances it’s even ideal.

There is probably no work of public art that’s more fun than Shuttlecocks (1994), the OldenBruggen on the lawn of the Nelson-Atkins in Kansas City. The piece is so iconic that last year a Kansas City Star sportswriter pointed out that the city’s two professional sports teams hadn’t had much playoff success since the Shuttlecocks were installed, and the Curse of the Shuttlecocks was born. As a former sportswriter, I can assure you that sportswriters rarely engage the cultural vanguard. Yet… [Image.]

“Sounds like to me that you want someone to remove those badminton birdies,” Kansas City Royals general manager Dayton Moore told the Star.

The Nelson’s blog features a post on how everyone — from the NFL to nuns — enjoys the once-reviled sculpture. The picture of the nun… well, don’t miss it.  (Remarkable: The Kansas City Star once railed against the sculpture. And one lonely little KC Star crank still hates ‘em. Teh oops.)

My favorite quote on the broad appeal of Shuttlecocks came from outgoing Nelson-Atkins director Marc Wilson: “We’ve had weddings under the shuttlecocks,” Wilson told me a couple years ago. “And a stripper was photographed next to one. In the buff.” (Apparently the stripper was being photographed for some promotional material. Wilson hasn’t seen said material, but he told me he’s always been curious…)

And oh yeah: This is the 15th anniversary of the work so the N-A has put together a little show explaining how Shuttlecocks happened.

Related: Also at the N-A right now and previously on MAN: Homer Page.

Cuno and Lacayo discuss admissions fees

Yesterday I noted that it takes the Art Institute of Chicago 837 words to explain its admissions fee policy. In the interest of fair play, here’s AIC director James Cuno and Richard Lacayo discuss the AIC’s fees on Looking Around today.

Cuno’s answers remind me that the AIC fees issue is another example of where cities and city residents unfairly bear many of the costs that could or should be spread across an entire metropolitan area. Since the city of Chicago ponies up for the AIC, Cook, DuPage, Kane, Kendall, Lake, McHenry and Will counties should too, with their residents receiving the same AIC-related benefits Chicagoans do. (Of course the AIC’s meager $2 discount for Chicagoans isn’t much incentive for county governments to step up, is it? Now if the AIC went free for Chicagoans…)

To be clear: I’m all for museums paying their bills. My problem with the AIC and its fees are related to two particular justifications the museum gave for its fee hikes. I outlined my objections here. After reading Cuno and Lacayo, I think they still stick.

Walker on a photo-acquiring mini-spree

VerbrugWTC.jpgSince late last year the Walker Art Center has acquired a bunch of photography. Instead of doing a ‘normal’ MAN acquisitions post, I’d try to give readers an idea of the breadth of the Walker’s new pieces. The Walker’s acquisitions included:

Andreas Gursky’s (typically massive) 1999 picture Klitschko. Question: In museums throughout America’s circa-1965 industrial heartland, Gilliams hang next to Frankenthalers hang next to Nolands. They all look a bit dated, like an end rather than a beginning. Will these big, fuzzy, oft-Photoshopped Gurskys look the same way?

Five Peter Hujar prints. The Walker’s Hujars include Palermo Catacombs #10 and 1985’s Ruined High Heels (Newark), which was included in Bob Nickas’ 2005 PS1 retrospective.

Ana Mendieta, Bacayu, 1981. Walker director Olga Viso curated the recent Mendieta retrospective.

A picture from Shirin Neshat’s Passage series, 2001. The Walker has collected Neshat in depth. This is the Walker’s second photograph from Passage. It also owns a picture from Neshat’s Rupture series and the film installation Soliloquy.

William Christenberry, The Alabama Box, 1980. This is a mixed-media piece that includes examples of Christenberry’s pictures of Alabama, as well as objects and even Alabama soil.

Tetsumi Kudo, Monument of Metamorphosis, 1970. A major Kudo show was recently on view at the Walker.

Two Joann Verburg photographs: WTC (2003) and Knee Plays Group No. 2 (1984). The Minnesota native recently received the survey treatment from MoMA, a show that traveled to the Walker. According to Minnesota Public Radio, Verburg shot WTC [above] the week of 9/11 but didn’t print it until two years later. There’s a ton of Verburg on the Walker’s mnartists.org (but I can’t link to the whole of it).

Tuesday links

  • Suspicious: The Dallas Museum of Art says it won’t lose money on the
    ethically dubious, profit-making, Anschutzian ‘King Tut’ show. But: Its
    director won’t talk to the Dallas Morning News about the topic and the museum won’t release documents that support its claims. Funny how errors create problems, no?
  • Confession: I’ve always liked much Frederic Remington too. (Hey: The East doesn’t get Stegner either.)
  • Sounds like ex-Getty director John Walsh finds sharing a room with art as much fun as I do.
  • You know your museum has a horrifically ridonkulous admissions fee policy when it takes 837 words on this page to explain it.