September 11, 2015

"Large, ambitious and unavoidably, dizzyingly peripatetic, this is a once-in-a-lifetime event."

Release the crowds! The NYT has published its rave review of the "Museum of Modern Art’s staggering 'Picasso Sculpture.'"
Picasso was more completely himself in three dimensions: a magician, a magpie genius, a comedic entertainer and a tinkerer with superb reflexes. His many gifts — versatility, voraciousness, a need for constant reinvention — are more sharply apparent in real space and tangible materials. We can’t miss his consummate grasp of tactility and form or of the potential for found objects and materials to lead double lives.
Speaking of "staggering," I love photos of people stumbling and bumbling through art galleries, so don't miss the slide show at the link. And let me highlight this one with — amid the Picassos  — a choice "living sculpture" I'll call "Man In Shorts."

And, yes, of course, I know Picasso himself wore shorts and posed for pictures in shorts. Here's a selfie he pulled off circa 1915:

20 comments:

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

I'm currently watching a lecture series on DVD called "Understanding the World’s Greatest Structures." It's structural engineering.

That NYT review might be fairly described as raving, but it might also be fairly described as ditzy.

It's a form of entertainment about another form of entertainment, irrespective.

Sebastian said...

"clarity, lyricism and accumulative wisdom"

Associating those words with Picasso confirms, as if evidence were needed, that art criticism has gone mad.

CStanley said...

I love photos of people stumbling and bumbling through art galleries

Karin Jurick, a local artist whose work I admire has a series of paintings of museum patrons.

YoungHegelian said...

unavoidably, dizzyingly peripatetic

I had no idea Picasso was so devoted to Aristotelian aesthetics!

chuck said...

"Ancient art" was the phrase that popped into my mind, artifacts from a vanished civilization. I wonder how they will look in another hundred years?

Bill said...

I wonder if you got to see Frederick Wiseman's National Gallery, which was released last year. Lots of great shots of patrons looking at the paintings. And everyone in long pants, from what I remember.

tim in vermont said...

I agree with Picasso that unless you are working with nothing, it is better to show a little bulge when wearing shorts. Suddenly objections disappear ;)

rehajm said...

'Men in Shorts'- LOL!

Thomas Struth gets credit for similar photographs of museum goers. I can't recall his contemporary who photographed museum crowds in an Italian gallery, but those were brilliant.

Quaestor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Quaestor said...

Peripatetic?

Is the sculpture motorized? Or is the MoMA? The Guggenheim looks like it might have wheels, but the MoMA's a bauhaus brick, so it's not likely to travel anywhere except up after a large bomb detonates under it. Does the NYT own a dictionary? And if so, isn't time they quit using it for a doorstop?

Quaestor said...

Well, I suppose I shouldn't fret too much about peripatetic. People who write about art have been misusing adjectives, verbs, and just about every part of speech for a long time - from about the time art stopped making sense. Funny coincidence, that.

mccullough said...

Peripatetic described the way Aristotle moved while he lectured

Quaestor said...

Peripatetic described the way Aristotle moved while he lectured

There's nothing Aristotelian about a Picasso sculpture.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

mccullough said...
Peripatetic described the way Aristotle moved while he lectured.


I thought the Peripatetics got the name from the fact that they met outside on a field used for exercise.

Quaestor said...

One prof of mine - none other than Tom Regan, patron saint of the "animal rights" movement - said the term applied to Aristotle's habit of pacing round rather than sitting serenely in the midst of his listeners. He compared Aristotle to Groucho Marx.

Never mind, we all know what it means. My point is the NYT evidently doesn't.

Guildofcannonballs said...

like you understand why Lowells have to be Lowells

Guildofcannonballs said...

"Lowell Palmer Weicker, Jr. (born May 16, 1931) is an American politician who served as a U.S. Representative, U.S. Senator, and the 85th Governor of Connecticut, and unsuccessfully sought the Republican nomination for President in 1980.[1] Though a member of the Republican Party during his time in Congress, he later left the Republican Party and became one of the few independents to be elected as a state governor in the United States in recent years. Weicker was also a member of the Board of Directors of WWE for 15 years prior to stepping down in 2011.[2]"

Might be a once-in-a-lifetime event but I am posting twice because due grade A inadvertently cross-posting without premeditation/consideration/aeropastictation.

You get it?

in ADVERT ently

I compenstate for what they lack above at the NYT.

Sam L. said...

I remain unimpressed and uncaring.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Who poses like that? Legs spread. Arms downthrust, hands clenched. Unsmiling. White shorts. Waist sucked in. Lousy hair cut. The "selfie" shows no more artistic sensibility than any modern selfie. Picasso was a jumped-up Basque sheep herder.

mikee said...

TIL: Picasso dressed left.

thanks, Althouse!