Art!
I like art. Thing is though, I'm not an artist myself, nor have I ever taken any kind of art history class or any of that kind of thing. My brother is the guy who knows about art and can talk about it, and comprehends color choices, brush strokes, and composition of paintings in a way that just goes over my head. I'm not an idiot or anything. I can look at a piece of art and enjoy the color choices or be able to tell that the artist put some thought and skill into producing it, etc. I just don't have the same kind of understanding that someone with formal training and/or a brain hardwired for creativity does when I look at art.
Still, I like art and can easily spend a whole day at the Art Institute here in lovely Chicago (note: Chicago has been cold and rainy for days and is anything but lovely this week). Thursday evenings from 5-8 pm the AI is free. Three hours isn't nearly enough time to see everything they have unless you just race through the whole museum, but since it's free it's easier to decide to just hang out and spend more time looking at fewer exhibits.
So last night The Man and I went to the AI, mostly to check out the new Modern Wing, which we hadn't seen since it opened in the summer. Before heading over there we went downstairs to see the photography. Currently they are showing Victorian photo collages made by artists who combined ink drawings and/or watercolor paintings with photographs. Does that really sound interesting? You may not think so. In fairness, not all of them were all that interesting other than for being a more creative way to add a backdrop for the people in the pictures (or add people to a painting of say, a landscape). Some of them, however, were so great. I never thought of Victorian art as being humorous, whimsical, ironic, or even slightly surreal. As it turns out, there were a few women (women!) making art in the late 1800s that look fresh today. We didn't have enough time to read all of the blurbs and to look at all of the pieces*, but I really wonder if those artists and their work were appreciated in their time or if it took a century or so for them to get the recognition they deserve.
The exhibit runs through January 3. I'm definitely interested in going back to have another look, and suggest that if you're in Chicago between now and then that you go check it out.
Still, I like art and can easily spend a whole day at the Art Institute here in lovely Chicago (note: Chicago has been cold and rainy for days and is anything but lovely this week). Thursday evenings from 5-8 pm the AI is free. Three hours isn't nearly enough time to see everything they have unless you just race through the whole museum, but since it's free it's easier to decide to just hang out and spend more time looking at fewer exhibits.
So last night The Man and I went to the AI, mostly to check out the new Modern Wing, which we hadn't seen since it opened in the summer. Before heading over there we went downstairs to see the photography. Currently they are showing Victorian photo collages made by artists who combined ink drawings and/or watercolor paintings with photographs. Does that really sound interesting? You may not think so. In fairness, not all of them were all that interesting other than for being a more creative way to add a backdrop for the people in the pictures (or add people to a painting of say, a landscape). Some of them, however, were so great. I never thought of Victorian art as being humorous, whimsical, ironic, or even slightly surreal. As it turns out, there were a few women (women!) making art in the late 1800s that look fresh today. We didn't have enough time to read all of the blurbs and to look at all of the pieces*, but I really wonder if those artists and their work were appreciated in their time or if it took a century or so for them to get the recognition they deserve.
The exhibit runs through January 3. I'm definitely interested in going back to have another look, and suggest that if you're in Chicago between now and then that you go check it out.