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 :(