a post in which I long for D.C.
I think I'm allergic to uninteresting art.
No really, I was at the Carnegie Museum of Art today (and their selection sucked, except for the sculpture hall which pretty much rocked it), and I went through the European and American art from now to the seventies first. That was pretty cool and interesting, but nothing outstanding.
I did really like the deep, bassy yet garbled blues voice that came out of the room showing a short video about the relationship between a guy and his truck, though. And the room with a video that was a total SH4 thing with the crawling down a tunnel. I actually stayed a few minutes and watched it until the room wasn't so dark and the voices outside the room were loud and clear. It was a little freaky so I went on to the rest of the gallery.
Anyway, I thought the art from the forties to the seventies was most interesting. I was surprised that there were no Warhols or Jasper Johns (though I'm not terribly surprised that there are none of the former seeing as how there's an entire museum dedicated to him right across the river), though there were two Jackson Pollocks (and one of them was next to a de Kooning which amused me). One was very red and vibrant, and obviously created before he created his signature style. The other one was in his most known chaotic style. Man, it looks like a bunch of paint splatters but they're paint splatters with energy and presence. Also, to my dismay, there was only one Francis Bacon painting. It wasn't one I had seen before, but it still retained that style of a ghosting aura, like a spirit rising above. It was of a field with some trees in the distance and something crouching in the wheat. It reminded me of an image I had once seen of Vietnam. No Balthus(?), either, though I suppose that's a good thing as I strongly suspect that he was pedophile... Oh, and there was no photography. That was rather off-putting. I like the Hirschhorn and National Gallery infinitely better.
But ANYWAY (seriously this time), it came to the European and American art of the forties and earlier...and I have to say that while I respect the technical aspects of most of the paintings, I am just bored to tears at the subjects.
I disliked walking through that part of the gallery so much that I got hives all over my arms and a rash on my neck.
If that lady from the research place ever calls me back, I'll have to ask her if they do testing on being allergic to uninteresting art...
No really, I was at the Carnegie Museum of Art today (and their selection sucked, except for the sculpture hall which pretty much rocked it), and I went through the European and American art from now to the seventies first. That was pretty cool and interesting, but nothing outstanding.
I did really like the deep, bassy yet garbled blues voice that came out of the room showing a short video about the relationship between a guy and his truck, though. And the room with a video that was a total SH4 thing with the crawling down a tunnel. I actually stayed a few minutes and watched it until the room wasn't so dark and the voices outside the room were loud and clear. It was a little freaky so I went on to the rest of the gallery.
Anyway, I thought the art from the forties to the seventies was most interesting. I was surprised that there were no Warhols or Jasper Johns (though I'm not terribly surprised that there are none of the former seeing as how there's an entire museum dedicated to him right across the river), though there were two Jackson Pollocks (and one of them was next to a de Kooning which amused me). One was very red and vibrant, and obviously created before he created his signature style. The other one was in his most known chaotic style. Man, it looks like a bunch of paint splatters but they're paint splatters with energy and presence. Also, to my dismay, there was only one Francis Bacon painting. It wasn't one I had seen before, but it still retained that style of a ghosting aura, like a spirit rising above. It was of a field with some trees in the distance and something crouching in the wheat. It reminded me of an image I had once seen of Vietnam. No Balthus(?), either, though I suppose that's a good thing as I strongly suspect that he was pedophile... Oh, and there was no photography. That was rather off-putting. I like the Hirschhorn and National Gallery infinitely better.
But ANYWAY (seriously this time), it came to the European and American art of the forties and earlier...and I have to say that while I respect the technical aspects of most of the paintings, I am just bored to tears at the subjects.
I disliked walking through that part of the gallery so much that I got hives all over my arms and a rash on my neck.
If that lady from the research place ever calls me back, I'll have to ask her if they do testing on being allergic to uninteresting art...