Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Anxious about Addition
After reading through multiple reviews of architect Renzo Piano's extension, the Broad Contemporary Art Museum, to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art I have to say that I am somewhat anxious about how the addition to the Art Institute of Chicago will turn out. They were, at best, only slightly disparaging. You can read the reviews in New York Times here, Los Angeles Times here, and the New York Review of Books here. The picture above picture from the NY Times is the frontal view of the museum which illustrates one of the many problems cited, that is, the huge dull walls facing the street which gives the museum a hulking and monolithic feel. The palm tree-on-blue is actually are giant banners hung on scrims, presumably to disguise the weightiness of the exterior.
Considering that Piano's "Modern Wing" addition to the Art Institute of Chicago is opening in 2009, these lackluster reviews are probably causing more people then just this author some anxiety. However, I think that the pitfalls in LA will be avoided here in Chicago. To see the plans for the building click here. The frontal facade, facing Monroe St., will be sheer glass which allays concerns about a weighty and boring entry. The dull, hulking wall criticized in LA here will be turned to the Metra train line that bisects the museum and as such will be needed and appropriate.
This is not avant-garde or daring architecture, but that's alright. The proposed design is classical and elegant modernist architecture and as such is perfectly in step with both the collection and the institution. It would be odd for this respectable and historic institute to have a really radical addition. The Piano addition is essentially updating the language of the classical Beaux-Arts hall that is the original building of 1893. The Piano is likewise reserved, rectilinear, and displays the art in natural light. For modern art, this building seems to fit the bill both for the art and the institution, for a contemporary art museum Piano may have been too conservative for LA.
Check back for updates, time will tell as the building takes shape over the next few months.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Ed Ruscha at the Art Institute of Chicago

If you're not on the e-mail list for the events at the Art Institute of Chicago, I would suggest that you sign up. They are in the habit of bringing very important cultural figures in to talk, which is precisely what Ed Ruscha did last Friday In a here's-what-I've-been-think-lately style artist "lecture," Ruscha ruminated on everything from Muhammad Ali to Gertrude Stein to photography, the supposed subject of the lecture set to coincide with the opening of the exhibit Ed Ruscha and Photography. While he did not lay out his style shifts strictly chronologically as one attendee griped, it was much more interesting to hear his current thoughts on art and art history then to just drone about his influences with slides clicking in the background.
Ruscha began by saying that he has recently bought a Peter Schuyff painting and displaying a slide of it. Utilizing for the base of the image what Ruscha describes as "a thrift-store painting" of a still life of flowers, Schuyff layered over the flowers concentric rings of blue and red paint until it mostly obscured the image except for the center and the edges. Ruscha noted that the artist lives in Amsterdam and said he imagines this is what flowers may look like in a psychedelic state (i.e. tripping). After implying that the artist was on drugs, Ruscha seemed to soften his opinion by saying that once he saw it he had to have it. Ruscha then moved to the next slide which showed the display of the Schuyff: sitting on top of Ruscha's toilet, propped up by a Kleenex box with the tissue sprayed out of the top obscuring the painting. Ruscha said he liked this display and thought it appropriate to the image, complimenting its form. This prompted quite a bit of laughter.
Ruscha also recalled the first time that Leo Castelli showed him a painting by Roy Lichenstein of converse sneakers emerging from a yellow star burst shape. He recalls the encounter with the image to be like "having lemon juice flung in your eyes."
Aside from these and other side stories, Ruscha did talk about the influence photography has had on his work. He cited Walker Evans as a influence in terms of his straightforward and historical style, methods which certainly manifest themselves sometimes in Ruscha's work though usually nuanced with text additions. He also noted that Evans was the artist that made him appreciate the United States, a statement quite interesting in its implications. Ruscha also noted influence that film technique has had on his work, particularly his very famous Large Trademark with Eight Spotlights (1963, top image) and his Standard Station series (1966, below). Recalling a scene in a film, or many films, Ruscha noted how an approaching train would begin as a speck and then grow bigger as it approached until it eventually filled the screen with image and noise, an event Ruscha tried to adapt to two dimensions.

While it meandered in its topic, hearing Ruscha speak was quite interesting. He avoided talking about his most current work which was too bad, instead focusing his more well known work. Next speaking event is Robert Pinsky, another not to be missed.
Free February at Chicago Museums?
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Hirst's Gambit

I thought that I should link over my article from CulturalChicago.com about Damien Hirst to this site, in case someone might want to comment here also. My argument here is essentially that the skull functions as a business plan rather than an objet d'art (emphasis on the decorative and collectible aspect of that word), and is much more interesting as such. The maneuvering of both artist and dealer are so shady and calculated they are more important or at least equally important to the object itself, especially since it is called "For the Love of God." The title (unusually relevant considering the breadth of Hirst's titles) brings to mind not only Hirst's reliable rhetoric of taking on "big" subjects, but the prime part price plays in an artist's career, and especially his career. What he sells at, resells at, donates, buys back, have all been prime concerns of Hirst et al. recently. Not to mention that the media attention was due to its much publicized price: a theatrical $100 million dollars. So why not enjoy the skull for what it is? An expensive pawn, as I posit? The art world is full of art about it's own price as it were, Duchamp, Warhol, and plenty of artists have bought back their works to control them, why not just be up front about it? Anyone else have any thoughts about this? If you didn't click the link above click here to be redirected to the post.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
The Art of the Simpsons
Since the Simpsons Movie is coming out so soon I think that it’s kind of indisputable that the Simpsons are one of the most influential (and longest running) animated shows on television. Some might argue that the show is crude and they would be right, sometimes it is. That is part of the vast appeal of the Simpsons, it appeals to everyone on every level. Beyond Homer saying “d’oh!” and getting hurt and Bart’s bad boy antics is a much more intelligent level which is perhaps why the series has been so long running. I can prove it.
Let’s talk about the art in the Simpsons. Throughout the series both high and low references abound. I am thinking about one example in particular that really struck me but let’s make sure I’m not totally nuts here, I mean animation intelligent? What would Greenberg say?
Among the overt references one of my favorites is when Lisa gets lost going to the Springfield Museum to see the “Treasures of Isis” exhibit, which in itself sounds very much like the King Tut exhibit that has been touring the U.S. off and on for years. For anyone who wants to look it up it’s the ’98 episode “Lost Our Lisa.” The King Tut exhibit is not the point (though it is a good one in itself) rather: when Homer and Lisa decide to illegally enter the museum (something I don’t recommend!) they climb what looks like an Alexander Calder mobile. It’s a mobile with the characteristic yellow, red and blue shapes attached to the large wires that Homer and Lisa manipulate using their weight to ascend to the top floor. Once inside they explore the exhibit, discover its secret and in typical fashion the episode ends with Homer chased by a pack of ravenous dogs.
Another example and relevant to readers of this forum, is a brief blackboard scrawl by Bart. Each episode opens with a montage in which Bart is presumably serving detention by repetitively writing something on the blackboard, phrase different each episode. In the 1999 episode “Little Big Mom” Bart, the bad boy of the Simpsons is punished by repetitively writing, “I will not create art from dung.” 1999 was also the year that the art of Damien Hirst (subject of recent posts) and in particular Chris Ofili were exhibited in “Sensation” at the Brooklyn Museum in New York. Ofili drew particular criticism for his image of the Virgin Mary that had elephant dung and rear ends on it. The Simpsons apparently also recognized him as the bad boy of art at the time through Bart Simpson, quite a tribute (though misplaced) in my opinion.
The most art focused episode came in season sixteen, 2005 when Frank Gehry, the designer of Millennium Park, Chicago, the Weissman Art Museum, Minneapolis (recently expanded), Guggenheim, Bilbao, guest stars as himself in an episode. If you can’t picture his buildings, perhaps this encounter between Gehry and a skateboarding Kearney will help. As Gehry chases Kearney and friends through the undulating steel clad building he is skateboarding on, Kearney teases, “Hey Frank Gehry, design curvilinear forms much?”
Prior to that had Gehry received a letter at his house that modeled it exactly after his own house in real life.
The letter is from Marge politely hoping he will design a Springfield Opera House. He is infuriated by the Snoopy stationary and angrily crumbles the letter throwing it to the ground. He does a double take, declares, “Gehry you genius!” and uses the wadded ball of paper as the basis for the Springfield Opera House.
Unfortunately, as we all know, the people of Springfield love an event but not opera and after realizing their aversion to the debut song by Beethoven they stampede for the exit despite Marge’s entreaty that the next song is an “atonal composition by Philip Glass!”However the impetus for writing tonight came from the episode guide for an even earlier season, eight. In “The Homer They Fall” the writers make a sly allusion. Homer has discovered an extra layer of fat in his head and logically becomes an amateur boxer. His strategy: let the opponent wear out and then push them over. A montage rolls as he defeats opponent after opponent. One scene briefly shows Homer standing victorious over his opponent. This image is most recognizable to those of that have season eight of the Simpsons since it is inset in the episode guide. The pose of Homer, legs wide apart, left arm over the chest, knocking his opponent out of the ring, with the referee as Moe standing over him pointing down is identical to George Bellows’ Dempsey and Firpo, 1923-24, in the collection of the Museum of Modern Art. Referring to one of the American Realists or “the Ashcan School,” who chose to depict everyday life in all its grittiness, the Simpsons cleverly alludes to one George Bellows’ iconic boxing images, replacing its characters with their own. The picture itself is a lithograph composed in the exact same manner that depicts the instant when Firpo stands triumphantly over Dempsey who is falling out of the ring and the crowd (supposedly including Bellows himself) is pushing him back in, or in the episode Lenny and Carl. The one lithograph is part of a larger series of boxing pictures in a variety of media that Bellows created throughout his life, the most famous probably being the Cleveland Museum of Art’s Stag at Sharkey’s, 1909, recently commemorated on a stamp. The obscure reference is quick, but it’s unmistakable.
These are just a few of the often subtle but always entertaining jokes that the Simpsons writers include with the usual slapstick and antics. This is doesn’t even take into account the vast amount of other musical (Tito Puente), historical (take your pick), scientific (Stephen Hawking) and literary references (Tom Wolfe) that are also included in the show. On July 27th the world will see if the series can translate its glory to success on the big screen.New Branch of Art Advocacy
I'm going to try posting on this server as a test run, to see what the advantages and disadvantages might be. Wider audience and focus might be two advantages in my mind. I am also planning on re-running certain articles from Madison.com and linking to other areas.