The Painting I Chose From PMA

This was my first ever visit to the PMA. The strange part, is that I have lived within 8 miles of it for my entire life. Seems like a bit of a shame now, but whatever, that's in the past. Now, on to the painting. I spent the first portion of my visit in the Rembrandt exhibition, but I wasn't allowed to take pictures, and I sort of didn't want to, so that's good. After Rembrandt, I went to the 1850-Present section, and that is where my choice comes from. It was such a wonderful gallery. Most of my favorite artists were active during those time periods. Van Gogh is my favorite painter that they have displayed at the museum (obviously Philadelphia isn't cool enough for a Caravaggio). Here we go:

I had never seen a Rothko painting (color field or otherwise) before in person. I knew that they were great, I know that I loved what he said, what he did, what they were, and how they looked, but there is no comparison between seeing one online and seeing one in person. I was truly engaged. I don't think that I ever experienced anything like that before in my life. I stood as close as I could without the guards getting pissed (I believe that the little foot railings were actually 18 inches away, so that's convient). I got lost in the painting. Rothko succeeded in shutting me out from the rest of the world (literally). While I was entranced at the painting, a group of people from a tour came by, waiting to talk about the piece while I was staring. I didn't notice them until they were all standing behind me, looking at the kid who was in front of this massive painting. I told the woman who was leading the tour that I didn't even notice their presence, and that I was only listening to Rothko when she asked why I was standing so closely to the painting. It has a spell. It sounds a little stupid, but wow. I didn't want to leave. It was that good. His colors and intriguing, and mildly muddy. His strokes are beyond astounding, messy, but flowing into one another with a savage grace that can only be seen while standing directly in front of the painting. His paintings made me feel much more emotion than anything else that I had seen. I don't care too much for Jesus, so almost the entire Pre 1850 section was out. And Rembrandt's portraits of Jews were nice, but not too interesting. The Barnes' collection of Impressionist paintings make the PMA look like a side show, so those were out--even though Van Gogh had some paintings there, they were just alright, and the rest of the bunch had some nice ones, but nothing to piss yourself over. Turner had a lovely painting in there, but I like his more chaotic ones, and watercolors, personally. Rothko's painting sings the song of his life and his personality. He had the most meaning in his three colored painting out of everything that was in that museum. I always said that I liked Rothko paintings, but now I can say that I love them. 

Here are some other pictures that I took before I came to the Rothko that stole my heart

These are the only two the even remotely grabbed my attention afterwards.

Picture before and after.

I think i want to change my picture to one of my personal photos, but this is what i have right now!

I love this goofy new layout, and my review of a review.

http://www.artreview.com/forum/topics/richard-serra-drawing-a

Richard Serra, Pacific Judson Murphy, 1978, paintstick on Belgian linen, two parts: 285 x 442 cm and 285 x 272 cm, private collection. Photo: Rob McKeever. © the artist 

Although I do consider myself relatively well rounded when it comes to the art world, I don't believe that I have ever read an actual review of an exhibition before. Thanks Rubens, for expanding my mind, one assignment at a time! 

The pictures in this article really struck a chord with me. It looked like something that an abstract would make (I was thinking Kazimir Malevich's "Black Square"). Serra's work looks as though it is just a piece of black canvas sitting in a room. Everybody is attracted to black; it is such a mysterious thing to encounter a strong, dark figure, no matter the circumstances. Black will always intrigue people (it worked for Caravaggio even some contemporaries who are, sadly, escaping my mind) and it always has. There is something about black the just makes people look at it. It could be the uncertainty of night, or just our natural instincts to know everything about our surroundings. Back to the paintings. It is interesting to think about these as "Drawings". The title of the actual exhibit is "Richard Serra Drawing: A Retrospective." For some reason, that really does not sit well with me. When I see the word "draw," I always assume that it will have pencil marks in it, or something that looks like a typical drawing; there is no drawing to be found in a completely black surface. This is a completely different kind of drawing. It is a paint stick drawing. That simple fact changes my entire perception of these works, and actually should change anybody's opinion while they may stumble across this in the Metropolitan Museum (less formally, the Met).

When I first looked, I just saw blackness. There was nothing besides a black surface. It looks cool, it leads somewhere that you might want to go, but are not sure if you want to go. Go, I promise (or at least think) that there will be a world of various marks, depths, textures and hues within that black plain, but only once you rub noses with it. Very similar in style to the work of Mark Rothko, to the unsuspecting viewer, it is just a few colors put in the middle of a canvas with absolutely no canvas showing. It seems boring, but when you look (Rothko recommended 18 inches from face to paint) a plethora of struggles, emotions, battles (both internal and external) are revealed in his brush strokes. Even though I have not scene any Rothko paintings, or any Serra drawings, I can only assume (hopefully not making an ass out of me) that they come to life when seen first hand. Serra seems to dig deep into the Mark Rothko's view of art: simple from a distance, yet multilayered upon further examination. Abstract expressionism (Rothko) and Minimalism (Serra) are fairly similar. An Abstract Expressionist's painting is done when the painting says it is, and a minimalist work is done when nothing in the environment is substantially changed. They both rely upon their surroundings very heavily. 

It is interesting to know that he was curious at such a young age, like most people, but it is extremely interesting to know that he kept his passion for curiosity throughout his entire life. When Serra talks of his artistic inspiration of "never say never mind," it adds a little something extra to the work. The final result is kind of cute. The article starts out with a conversation that Serra and his mother had when he was a younger. Art is Serra’s need to find an answer to something that his authority figure would not, or could not answer for him. His impeccably clean presentation of the pieces adds to the intrigue of it all. When is something so rough, so dense contained in something so delicate and clean? Why are his sculptures so massive, but unobtrusive and seemingly frail?

            Art shows humans what people are capable of; Serra pretty much does that. People can question, and people can create.

Apparently I'm a mother fucking monster, because that review above me is 666 words long.

http://vimeo.com/18551034 i don't know how to embed videos :(

Persona

Sadly enough, I will be following the guideline questions because of my utter confusion with the movie.

Think about what was shown, especially in the beginning (images cropped, scale, value, contrast)
as an example that relates to research/archiving
The beginning of the movie was strange, but it felt as though it was necessary to make the viewer seem off balanced, or just plain uncomfortable. There was not really a rhyme or reason for the imagery, but it completely succeeded in making me confused. Welding tools are the first think that come into screen, and they add an overly bright contrast to the pitch black that encompasses it. The penis is an extremely quick shot (if someone blinked, they would have missed it). The cartoon which is after that is strangely serene, but eventually skips which makes it seem like it is out of place, just like everything else involved. It's mostly a high contrast first seen; everything is clearly different that its surroundings. The archiving is shown through the cartoon, which is something that has already been made, but is changed drastically by the filmmaker, giving it a new, erie life. 

• What do these images have to do with the narrative of the film

Now that i think about it, these images all seem to be a precursor to the entire story of the film. Bright interaction at first, becoming comfortable (cartoon), them having some sort of altercation (when she finds the letter), the spider that is moving slowly and being cautious (awkward time between the letting and confrontation), bleeding out the sheep (confronting her about the horrible letter), and the crucifixion (her making the patient feel bad about her past).

 - Why is "art especially good for those who have problems"?

• What does this mean? 

It's a creative outlet for people to get some emotions or problems that they have out into the public, so they can try to cope or overcome the problem. (Obviously worked for Van Gogh, Caravaggio, Pollock, Rothko, Basquiat...)

• Are artists the most problematic people? 

Not always, some are normal people who just have a knack for making things that people find appealing. On the other hand, there are artist like the ones on the list up there, those people are problematic. It's really a question of personality, there could be an scientist who is stubborn or a problematic teacher, it's just the luck of the draw.

• Or are artists the most open to deal with problems? 

Artists seem to deal with problems. Picasso made Guernica to let his pain ease. Postal workers have reputation for killing people. Maybe it's because postal workers don't paint or confront their problems, maybe they were just SUPER ANGRY that day.

• Or do artists simply hide behind the notion that they are "open" while remaining hidden behind the mask of art? 

An artist like Van Gogh was very up open about his problems. He made self portraits of himself while he was bandaged from his ear "surgery." I feel like it is difficult to use something that created by the hands with the feelings to hide the problems that are controlling the hands.

• Do artists only "talk" when they are "afraid of death"?

I don't think so. Dying is something that most artists (or at least some of the ones I mentioned) were not afraid of dying. That is why they could dig so deeply into their person to find out what is happening and to have the courage to put it onto a canvas. Their works are their talking, and they don't really avoid death, they just incorporate it into their works. 

• Explain your poisitions

Death is feared by those who think ahead. NONE of those artists lived anywhere but in the moment. Caravaggio: killed someone and painted his way out of trouble, died of malaria trying to find his salvation. Van Gogh painted (and did not successfully sell a painting to anyone but his brother) until he didn't want to live anymore, so he shot himself.  Pollock did his own thing. He was an alcoholic pretty much for his entire life besides the pinnacle of his fame, after that, he went drunk driving with his mistress and died. Rothko made some of the most moving pieces in the art world, with such depth, but decided that he wanted to die (was it related to the commission that he did not finish?) Basquiat was covering New York with graffiti, then he became famous via Warhol, and died a heroine overdose. 

None of them really cared, they did what they loved and felt for. 

- Is the doctor correct in her assessment of Elizabeth, that she is just playing a role? If not, is she correct about the things she estimated, of Elizabeth just wanting "to be" and not appear or seem "to be"?
I think that Elizabeth was playing a role. She wasn't unstable, she was just tired of what was happening, and needed some inspiration or a different scene, like a lot of artists.  - Is Alma the nurse Elizabet's soul? Vice versa? Are they metaphorically the same person?
Elizabeth seems like a journal for Alma. Alma has no where to go with her different feelings, but Elizabeth is a blank slate where Alma can pour all of her emotions without any remorse. Alma was tortured, and Elizabeth was the escape, sort of like Elizabeth wanting to flee her life. - What do you make of Elizabet's husband conversation with Alma?
Elizabeth just needed someone to love unconditionally. Her lover was unfaithful, and she felt badly about that. Elizabeth's husband was someone who was completely devoted to her. There was no question about how he felt towards his wife. Alma was jealous. 
- What do you think about the juxtapositions of opposites in the film (inside/outside, city/seaside, light/dark)?
It was very interesting; the constant changing created an environment of shock. If there was no constant, then the viewer would need to be attentive throughout the entire piece. Contrast is one of the most beautiful things about any kind of art. Without contrast, an audience would quickly lose interest. Nobody wants to see the same thing over and over again. - Why is the end conversation repeated from different angles? What do you make of when their faces converge?
It seemed as that the conversation was completely different when it was shown from the different angles. It allowed the viewer to feel what the characters felt. How it was to be talked to so harshly, and how it felt to throw such terrible words into the face of someone who has angered you. It made it feel personal, getting to see how the characters felt if you were them. An odd, but cool take on how people perceive a fixed outcome.
- What happens when you are in utter silence, alone with your thoughts? do they judge you, or complement you, do you find peace in them, do you find that you have to expose them in order to find peace?
- how do you expose them and make something with it
I usually just think too much about stuff that I probably shouldn't think about. I try to ride my bike while I am quiet so I can do something that doesn't involve me thinking about the future. I wish I would make something with my thoughts, but they all usually turn into procrastination. 


Damn, this was a long post! ENJOY IT!

Questionnaire

What is your favorite article of clothing you currently own?

Without a doubt, I would have to say my Warehouse 660 jeans. They aren't merely a pair of jeans, however, they themselves are pieces of art that change every single time they are worn. The jeans mold to find the wearer's form and lifestyle. They're just a wonderful excuse to create art without effort.

'