And so my love/hate relationship with contemporary art continues. After the previous post about my visit to Chicago, a Facebook friend wrote: “Strong
feelings of ambivalence are an indication of deep involvement. Sounds like perhaps you
need to choose more judiciously what to see?”
Yes, and no. I want to keep an open mind, and there’s nothing I
like better than to have my prejudices overturned, as they were when I realized
I liked (some of) Damien Hirst’s spots. I can’t help
having opinions, so must constantly guard against turning into one of those
loathsome people who spout about things they haven’t seen. However we should keep
the question open until after my visit to the Hirst retrospective at the TateModern next week. One thing I know is that, after going to Barcelona’s SWAB fair on Saturday, in the interest of sanity, I should avoid art fairs altogether. At
least I got to have a chocolate afterward.
Rather than “young,” the art at SWAB should have been billed as
“immature”— adolescent scribbling like you wouldn’t believe. Or maybe you
would. Luckily, however, as in Chicago, my inevitable tailspin was mitigated by
later seeing spare, graceful, very grown up art, this time Rita McBride at the Barcelona Museum of Contemporary
Art
(MACBA). While the MACBA building is another example, like the Art Institute of Chicago’s Modern
Wing,
of harsh white walls and architectural hubris run amok (here that of Richard Meier), every exhibition I’ve seen at MACBA has been
beautifully chosen and intelligently executed. Wait, I should say every recent exhibition I’ve seen, thereby excluding a gigantic show in
2005 devoted to Francis Alÿs, whose “diverse body of artwork that explores urbanity,
spatial justice, and land-based poetics” (barf!) is a perfect example of what Jerry
Saltz has accurately
labeled and defined as “curator art.”
Richard Meier, Barcelona Museum of Contemporary Art: Where's the art?
At least MACBA doesn’t have a café. Chicago’s Art Institute, given its monolithic isolation on Michigan Avenue, needs to offer
sustenance to the hoards of attendees, but its food options
clearly reflect its values. For the 1%, there’s the posh, reservations-only Terzo Piano upstairs, while
downstairs the other 99% of us are relegated to the euphemistic “Museum Café,”
really a cafeteria. Here the gastronomic choices (burger station, pizza
station, and sandwiches entombed in plastic) are of food court quality and
accompanied by endless petroleum products—despite being a location where no one
would, or could, take meals away. I was appalled when I was there, but now
visiting in Europe, I’m even more disgusted by our throwaway society. Clearly
it was foolish of me to assume that a cultural institution would somehow be
conscious of plastic being not only wasteful but unaesthetic (my chocolate, if
served in a plastic cup, would not be nearly so tantalizing). I suddenly had
the horrifying thought that for current generations of Americans, the concept of
reusing crockery at all is likely to seem as antiquated as linen hankies.
Addressing my previous post, Ben F. comments, “The large white box and grand entrance are created to give a
sense of permanence in the way banks used to be built. A sense that the bank
would be here long after you are gone so that you could trust that your donations
(of art/money) would be safe. The large space then needs to be fitted with art
to scale.”
Again, silly me! I forgot that the main purpose
of any institution is self-preservation, which means that the Art Institute’s
primary concern is to secure the wherewithal that keeps it going. And there I
was, thinking that it was about art!
nice
ReplyDeleteI think you are right on target. I also sometimes wonder "where's the beef" when I visit museums like the DeYoung in SF. The building seems more important than the walls with the art.
ReplyDelete