October 11, 2019

"[T]he expanded MoMA is making obvious efforts to reshape its image without going entirely off-brand — to tell the tale of what might be called Modernism Plus, with globalism and African-American art added...."

"The first gallery, now labeled '19th Century Innovators,' is pretty much a painting hit parade — Cezanne’s 'Still Life with Apples' (1895-98), Rousseau’s 'The Sleeping Gypsy' (1897) and, straight ahead, van Gogh’s 'The Starry Night' (1889).... But to this familiar two-dimensional European world MoMA has introduced an American wild card: half a dozen nugget-like ceramic bowls and jugs by George Ohr (1857-1918), the self-proclaimed 'Mad Potter of Biloxi.'... The gallery [that is] a virtual Picasso shrine, with his 1907 'Les Demoiselles d’ Avignon' at the center, and related pictures ranged around it [includes]... a 1967 painting, acquired in 2016, by the African-American artist Faith Ringgold depicting an explosive interracial shootout. Titled 'American People Series #20: Die,' it speaks to 'Demoiselles' both in physical size and in visual violence. And just by being there it points up the problematic politics of a work like Picasso’s — with its fractured female bodies and colonialist appropriations — that is at the core of the collection. MoMA traditionalists will call the pairing sacrilegious; I call it a stroke of curatorial genius.... Multicultural is now marketable. To ignore it is to forfeit profit, not to mention critical credibility."

Writes Holland Cotter in "MoMA Reboots With ‘Modernism Plus’/If they moved Monet, don’t despair. There are stimulating ideas and unexpected talents at every turn, from Africa, Asia, South America, and African America. (And plenty of works by women.)" (NYT).

23 comments:

rehajm said...

I was a member many years ago when it was worth it to skip the line. Recently they’ve been verrryy agressive in getting me to come back with my wallet. I like to think its a get woke go broke situation...

whitney said...

I was at the doctor's office the other day and picked up a book called The A-Z of Art which featured artists in alphabetical order from the Byzantine and earlier to the modern-day which meant that one page could have A baroque portrait of Madonna and child and the facing page could have rotten meat under a spotlight. It's a fantastic book to exemplify long-term ongoing degradation of our culture. It was really stunning.

Robert Edick said...

Where is this generation's Tom Wolfe or Robert Hughes?

Kevin said...

Everyone who has ever been in a museum knows that when you put nobodies in the room with famous artists, the nobodies get walked past with scarcely a curious glance. So I don’t know what this hopes to achieve, besides MOMA wasting their own space. About the only way they could salvage this strategy is to remove the labels, and hope to fool the newbs. Even that strategy won’t work for long in the internet age though, as people will just post illicit online guides.

Wince said...

And you can put your weeeed in it!

Biotrekker said...

Pairing sublime and classic masterpieces with forgetable works that bang you over the head with an overt political message, or whose only salient feature is that they were produced by a physically "diverse" person. Great.

Fernandinande said...

'American People Series #20: Die'

Somewhere a bored, semi-talented high-school kid is missing his doodles.

stlcdr said...

What is MoMA? ...(doing the old google thing)...Ah, Museum of Modern Art. Museum. Modern. I’m sensing a dichotomy. I’ve held the growing belief that modern art isn’t actually art, or indeed anything of any worth. Have not seen anything that would be placed in such an art gallery that would be actually considered art.

Kevin said...

Multicultural is now marketable.

In the future, everything will be hyphenated.

Amadeus 48 said...

..."(and plenty of works by women)."

Thank heavens. We need to sample the whole feast of mediocrity that is modern art in our museums. As my mother used to say, "The poor dear is doing the best she can."

wildswan said...

I have always thought that MoMA and similar modernist museums were trying to show the painters and sculptors who initiated a new way of painting or sculpting or whatever. Artists copy each other and even themselves and there's plenty of great art like that - but is a museum like MoMA for the copyists? Putting in followers doesn't make sense to me. And when those followers are from "the Third World," doesn't this suggest that their indigenous art patterns have been colonized? And when they are women, that the women are imitators, not leading edge artists? The only thing I saw that was interesting was a room in which the ideas of modern architecture were paired with art from the slum projects built using those ideas.

wildswan said...

I felt it was a gain to learn to see that a shadow on green grass was different color that shadowed red maple leaves - Monet. And it was a gain to learn to see African design as design, not a childish inability to be representational - Picasso. And the same for Chinese and Japanese design - Whistler, Monet. Their paintings are a gateway to Chinese and Japanese art when you start as a Westerner. (Just a gateway, with bend in the path just beyond.) But victim porn in the style of Picasso at Guernica is not a gain.

wildswan said...

They should call the place the Museum of Globalist Art, MoGA, because that's how they have evolved. MOMA's Book of Global Art Peerage. If you can show you have descended from one of the First Fathers of Modern, you get in. Otherwise your antimoderne, PoMo, mudblood art is excluded - rightfully so.

chuck said...

The smart set is boring, but they can always give themselves awards.

wildswan said...

I've been reading recently about how in England they are doing over all the museums (including several like the Galton Museum and the Pitt-Rivers Museum that embodied some eugenic assumptions.) And they are right about one thing - when they do over a museum you do see that it embodied assumptions you were unaware of as well as those you knew were there. But then this reflects back into seeing the assumptions in the new ordering. And in fact all these doovers, I see now, make the same exact point - that they are showing Third World people and women carrying out the Modernist project. That's the Globalist style. It isn't diversity, it's homogeneity.

n.n said...

Rabid diversity, including racism and sexism.

Oso Negro said...

Maybe they can ship all the European paintings to fly-over country and focus on the primitive African stuff.

Michael K said...

The London Tate Modern Museum was a must see for my daughter when we were there about 20 years ago. It was the era of rotting sharks and artist's poop in cans. One "art" piece was a board with nails driven into it in the outline of a fish. String was then would around the nails. It was titled "Fish."

I wondered what happened when the string rotted away.

Earnest Prole said...

Run, don’t walk, to see George Ohr’s ceramics.

Caligula said...

Perhaps MoMA trying to model itself after government jobs programs?

Government jobs programs exist to create jobs; any actual work product that results can only be a bonus in any case is incidental and of little interest or importance.

Of course, there must be set-asides and other spoils programs to ensure that all pressure groups are adequately represented. Lest someone cry "J'accuse!" and subject the trustees to trial by Twitter.

Thus MoMA, which was created to display (and perhaps celebrate) "degenerate" art, comes to resemble its early critics in becoming a bastion of conventional wisdom, a fiefdom into which anyone or anywthing that is at all contrarian, unconventional or nonconforming to the pius-PC "truths" of our age can only be excluded.

Maillard Reactionary said...

Another reason to not go there.

Thanks for the heads-up!

mtrobertslaw said...

Contrast the beauty (as this word has been re-defined) of "Deomiselles" and "American People Series #20: Die" with Natural Beauty.

Richard Dolan said...

"Multicultural is now marketable. To ignore it is to forfeit profit, not to mention critical credibility."

MoMa is nothing if not woke! to the core. Any day now we might get their effort at an update of Harlem on My Mind.

But it's also a business and a brand. Wonder how they would treat someone with a "Free Hong Kong" message -- don't want to jeopardize possible reproduction rights in the Chinese market, they might boycott the place and do a deal instead with the Met or the Guggenheim or the Whitney.

Despite all the wokiness and the horrendous crowds, the collection is terrific.