This is not a post.
TheDetroit Institute of Arts is quite nice. Very underrated.
Not to start an argument about modern art, but one thing about it is that there is really great modern art and there is really crappy art. There hasn’t been enough time to filter out all the crappy art, like the classical work. The beauty is you get to decide what is good and what is bad. But a lot of people see a piece in a museum, assume it must be good because it’s in a museum, and then write off all modern art.
There is no way that a dead mouse could be stuffed to this size, and its body would never be so symmetrical and smooth. It was about as tall as myself.
That will work. As long as you find a decent docent.
But if you find a dissenting docent, the answer won’t be decisive.
If you discover a distant docent, expect a discordant discourse.
If the words, ‘Modern Art’, are anywhere in their description then the answer is no. Come to New York go to the MoMA or The Whitney and you’ve got a lot of form without meaning and meaning without form, but never the two shall meet.
It sounds like the museum in Seattle was actually closer to having real art in it than most.
Love the Art Institute, but the new Modern Wing left me cold. I’m sure the artist (whose name escapes me) was moved by what he created, bit I failed to connect. I like a lot of (even “most”) modern art, but much of this guy’s work exhibited little “skill”; it was more of an emotional outburst that was uncontrolled and unimpressive. I did what I could to understand the technical approach (balance, etc.) but it didn’t hold my attention. I guess if you call it “art”, then it’s art. However, I’ve seen more interesting accidents in my day.
Seattle resident–and thirding the general crapitude of the SAM. IMO, the museum is only worth going to if they are hosting a particular traveling exhibit that interests you. Otherwise, they have a very small classical/renaissance art exhibit, almost no sculpture to speak of, and a lot of space dedicated to native american art which feels very misplaced and is better off in one of the other local historical or cultural museums.
And I’m also of the opinion that modern art has, in general, destroyed the art world and appeal of many museums. I’ll take a bronze statue of Hermes any day over some hacked together “found art” modern exhibit.
Houston specifically, and Texas in general, have such a distorted reputation nationally. We have such incredible cultural offerings, but people think of us as secessionist, redneck hicks. The Menil and the HMFA are world class! And the traveling exhibits that all of our museums host are incredible.
(Note: This was a little off topic, so I apologize. It’s just that I recently helped work up a few reports for a friend’s dad running for mayor, and the experience left even me amazed at just how awesome my city is! Of course, it is still in a humid swamp, but that’s the fault God and the Allen Brothers.)
This is a fantastic point. I came into the thread ready to go with the “modern art sucks” line of thought, but you have won the day with this comment.
Saying modern art sucks without the filter of time is as unfair as saying that movies from the 1970’s were better than movies released in 2009. If you look at the films of 1975 as compared to 2004, both years produced a few gems, and many more clunkers. But you take a whole decade, you can finds dozens of great films.
The same is true here, I suppose. Thanks for the clarity.
“Faeces”?
I’ll second the recommendation for the Cleveland museum. In addition to the more traditional art that Sigmagirl linked to, there are also some modern pieces in there that are genuinely good art. One, for instance, is this black wrought-iron wall hanging, about four feet square, that I grew up convinced that it ate children. I can’t say I like it, but I can’t deny that it’s extremely effective at conveying emotion. On the other end of the scale, my favorite piece in the museum is a colorful, busy diorama of a New York street. It’s just so much fun.
By definition, it is the modern age right now, and the post-modern age hasn’t happened yet. At least, so I insist.
I think the people that appreciate modern art are more consistent customers, so modern art brings in money. Most people will only pay to go see a van Gogh exhibit once or twice, but when every time you go to the museum it could be anything from carefully arranged rocks to a life size chocolate Jesus every exhibit is worth a few bucks. There is a lot more risk that you wont like what you see, but the ones you like affect me in a way that no van Gogh ever could.
I don’t know about the toad but the mouse sounded really cool to me, too. If anyone has a picture of it online somewhere I’d love to see it.
MoMA? You been the one that owns and displays The Persistence of Memory, Starry Night and a triptych of The Water Lillies? Picasso? Magritte? Cezanne? And some sculpture by that charlatan Rodin? That MoMA!?
Heh heh, I love that polar bear. I just wonder what he’ll do once that blizzard ends.
The last time I visited SAM was when they had an absolutely stunning exhibition of Impressionists (must have been 2000 or thereabouts). I’ve had a very favorable impression of the place ever since. A pity it has gone downhill (if it has).
Post of the year.