
Friday, February 25, 2011
MOMA, 11 West 53 street, Picasso:Guitars, 1912-1914. Through June 6th

Thursday, October 7, 2010
MOMA, 11 west 53rd street Abstract Expressionist New York: Through April 25th
To use the term "New York abstract expressionist" is a little like saying "southern NASCAR driver", or "tall NBA player." Virtually all Ab Ex's were New Yorkers at one time or another. The only one I can think of that wasn't was Richard Diebenkorn, who painted out of the California Bay Area. There might be others, but their names don't exactly jump to mind. Anyway, it's considered a New York movement, and it's historically what made New York the center of the art world. It's been over 60 years since these artists came to prominence, but I think they're still a little touchy about the whole thing in Europe. The show is all work that's already in MOMA's permanent collection, so if you're a frequent visitor to the museum you've undoubtedly seen a lot of it before, but a lot of the work isn't usually on display, so some at the very least should be new to you. I know there's a lot that I hadn't seen before, and I go there all the time.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Lee Bontecou & Bruce Nauman @ MoMA through Aug. 23 & 30
Friday, August 7, 2009
Museum of Modern Art, 11 West 53 street James Ensor. Through Sep 21
When you look at the history of modern art and the significant personalities that designed it James Ensor (1860-1949) has to be seen as something of a unicorn. He's a fascinating, and clearly important artist, but he can't really be categorized. He partially fits into a couple of different movements, but not fully into any of them. We know he was a major figure in the Belgian avant-garde, but I don't know if that was a very hard thing to do, because for the life of me I can't think of a single other Belgian painter. Can you?
The show concentrates on his early work, and most of the paintings and drawings are from the 1880s and 90s. After getting out of art school Ensor set up a studio in the attic of his families curiosity shop in a small resort town off the North sea, and worked there for the rest of his life. His early paintings are dark murky cityscapes, still life's and interiors where he uses a thick impasto and the liberal use of a pallet knife as well as both ends of his brushes. A lot of these paintings look strikingly similar to some of Cezanne's early work. This style of painting was called "tachisme", which meant to mark or stain; something Ensor did quite aggressively. The surfaces of these early paintings are very physically beaten, scratched and marked up in an almost violent manner. There is however a clear sophistication to the way he painted, something very evident in paintings like "The Oyster Eater" (1882). References to northern old masters like Rembrant, Breugel, and Bosch can be found throughout the show. This strange mix of sophistication and brutality was a sign of his restless desire for innovation and need to rebel against aesthetic convention. It's particularly evident later in the show with his wildly improvisatory etchings and large scale drawings, that look almost like a cross between daVinci and a mental patent.
Some time around 1883 his pallet becomes brighter, and his images more eccentric. His figures and the relationship between them becomes more theatric. In some cases they seem farcical, in others tragic, and a strange symbolism seeps into his work. He starts including masks and sculls in his paintings, and becomes fascinated with cross dressing and death. The death obsession was so great that it actually drove him to paint his fathers corps lying in a coffin, apparently from life (so to speak). Around 1885 he became interested in the relationship between spirituality and the imagination, and sought to paint light as a subject. He reimagined religious images in bold provocative ways, like "Tribulations of St Anthony" (1887). In some cases he cross referenced biblical stories with contemporary culture. This culminated with his masterpiece "Christ's Entry into Brussels" (1889), which unfortunately isn't in the show (I blame the Getty). He also painted a number of self portraits as Christ, or as a martyred Christ-like figure. His persecution complex was pretty out of control. Other times he painted himself dressed in women's clothing, or as a fool or clown pissing in a gutter, and in one case as a pickled herring being chewed on by two sculls. While walking through the galleries I twice overheard someone say "Man, he was really fucked in the head." While I think that's a bit of an oversimplification, I can't entirely disagree.
Ensor had a very individual and idiosyncratic vision, but it was a vision that never grew complacent. His career is marked by an overwhelming obsession with history and convention, and an equally overwhelming need to rebel against, and in some cases revise it. The fact that he had such a broad and detailed knowledge of art history and managed to make so many cultural and historical references, yet still maintained such an unusual and autonomous vision is testimony to his strength of character and artistic integrity. He had conflicting views of his identity as an artist, views that he never seemed to feel the need to resolve. He saw himself as both satirist and mystic, as narcissist and martyr, as cultural sophisticant and outsider visionary, as old master and insolent child. Chronologically the last painting in the show is "Moses and the Birds" (1924). I think it's one of, if not the most stunning and original piece in the show, and it's one that only an artist who had traveled such a unique path could have painted, even if that path was confined to a small Belgian attic.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Kippenberger on Kippenberger -- We Have the Essay!
Thursday, February 26, 2009
MOMA/ Marlene Dumas Dec 14-Feb 16

While Ms Dumas has become quite well known in Europe and is seen as an important painter This is the first major US exhibit of the artists work. I'd heard a good deal about her and I've seen individual pieces in person and even more in reproduction, but I'd never seen an actual exhibition of her work before. After seeing room after room of her paintings and drawings I have to say I really don't get what all the fuss is about.
The curator decided to hang this show according to theme as opposed to chronology , which I usually think is a bad idea, but in this case the artists work has changed so little over the twenty-some years the show covers that it doesn't seem to make any difference. She has a very distinctive style, where she uses thin stains of paint complimented with thicker dry brush marks. She also likes to place pale white figures against dark black backgrounds, or dark black figures against white grounds. These are fairly unoriginal stylistic decisions she seems to have arrived at early on, and never deviated from.
The human figure is really the primary focus of her work, usually the female figure, but there are also a lot of babies and a few men (usually being tortured). There's also a lot of nudity, with a lot of violent and sexually charged images that can only be described as superficially expressive. Even more so are her titles. One example is a 1995 painting of a nude middle aged woman entitled "Magdalena (out of eggs out of business)". Like her paintings, it's not subtle but not very powerful or thought provoking either. Her compositions are oddly cramped and centralized, I guess to show the body as an unnaturally compressed or repressed entity. The faces are frequently flattened out, with mask like distortions. Her ink drawings are better because she doesn't have to deal with color (which isn't her strong suit), and the bodies become runny improvisational puddles of ink on the white paper.
The whole "body politics" issue and how it relates to painting is something that's been handled much better in the past. I'm reminded of Francisco Clement, or Francis Bacon, or even John Currin who are/were much better painters than Ms Dumas, and whose work isn't weighted down with all her tired feminist baggage.
If she were a 20 or 30 something year old artist having her first solo show I wouldn't be as critical of her work, but she isn't. I kept thinking as I walked through the galleries of the potential behind what she was doing. Maybe if she more directly addressed the history of how women and women's bodies have been depicted in painting, or if her depiction's of them were more original or idiosyncratic, or if there were some evocative narrative between the bodies then the work might be more interesting. These are issues she's going to have to deal with as an artist, but she's going to have to get past her complacency as a painter first.
MOMA/ Pipilotti Rist Nov 19-Feb 2
The thing that really struck me about Ms Rist's installation is how much fun it is. I saw a lot of children running around laughing and a lot of adults collapsing on the floor and rolling around as if tripping on some psychedelic drug. This idea of art as hallucinogen is an interesting one, and one that has a strong historical precedent. You can find it in Blake, and Bosch and later in a number of the surrealists. Today you can see it in a few of Rist's contemporaries like Philip Taaffe, Fred Tomaselli and Matthew Barney. There's a school of thought that believes art is supposed to take you out of your conscious mind, and into your subconscious or unconscious or into some elevated spiritual state. In a way Rist uses these unconventional means to explore one of arts great conventions. In this sense Ms Rist's installation serves the same function as an early renaissance religious icon. It's both a catalyst for spiritual enlightenment and a child friendly peyote trip.