Articles by: Chelsea

A Late Vermeer — Or is it?

A Late Vermeer — Or is it?

We read Martin Gladwell’s Blink for my museum studies seminar — a bestseller that focuses on the importance of those inexplicable moments of intinct. In the first chapter, he talks about the Getty Kouros  controversy.  Curators at the Getty, looking over the Greek statue for months, became convinced of its authenticity and purchased it at great price; yet others, such as Thomas Hoving, former director of the Metropolitan, saw it at first glance and simply knew it could not be real.  Whether or not the Kouros is a forgery or not remains unknown, but Gladwell argues that those first glace, gut-instinct moments should not be ignored.

Attributed to Vermeer, A Young Woman Seated at the Virginals, currently at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. (Click image for larger view)

I had a “blink” moment in front of the controversial Vermeer now on view at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which I wrote about a few months ago.  As I walked through the Italian Renaissance rooms to the Dutch Golden Age galleries, I was completely ready to dismiss the Vermeer as a fake.  After all, in reproductions we’d viewed in my seminar, it looked so preposterous: a huge yellow shawl, blank walls, ringlets in her hair and those hands (click the image to the right to view it closeup, and you’ll understand what I mean).  But when I walked in to the room, turned the corner, and marched straight up to the little painting, the first thought that popped into my mind was: Wow, it really is a Vermeer.

It took me a good twenty minutes or more in the room — happily, surrounded by almost all of the Met’s authenticated Vermeers for comparison — to put my fingers on exactly why my gut instinct was so positive.  The second thought in my mind was when I looked at the ribbons in the figure’s hair.  They are painted with such care but at the same time such simplicity — a single pulling of bright red paint, a few daubs of white — that immediately made me think of a very similar detail in the Louvre’s Lacemaker (see gallery below): the red and white threads pooling over the pincushion are painted with just as much care.  Interestingly, the ringlet hairstyle I’d originally considered so odd appears in that very painting, too. Moreover, the Lacemaker is about the same size as this intimate, small painting.

Saturday, March 14, 2009 3 comments
Dia:Beacon

Dia:Beacon

diabeacon_view
View of Dia:Beacon on the Hudson River, from Wikipedia.com

Step through sculptures made of strings, see yourself reflected in what seems to be a volcano of glass, walk through a towering rusted spiral, gaze into huge, endless geometric pits, and imagine who wrote each of a set of 4,000 vintage postcards.  Where else can you do all these things but at the amazing Dia:Beacon?

I’ve attended college in the Hudson Valley for four years, and only now, in my final semester, have I at last managed to visit Dia:Beacon, the sprawling contemporary art installation museum in Beacon, NY (located about an hour or so from New York City).  Dia:Beacon has all the greats of contemporary art, including Richard Serra, Gerhard Richter, Donald Judd, and Agnes Martin, as well as a number of artists I’d never heard of before, but whose art fully engrosses you.

diabeacon_sandback
Fred Sandback, Untitled from Dia:Beacon website

The museum is a playground of optical illusions.  The stark white galleries immediately present you with the eye-numbing neons of Dan Flavin and then the meticulously layered pencil murals of Sol LeWitt, who seems a Dia favorite.  Throughout your journey through the huge, echoing Dia warehouse, you constantly wonder: What is real? What am I looking at? What is this space?

Fred Sandback‘s string sculptures (a view, at left) ask these questions playfully, creating larger-than-life rectangles and triangles that you know are flat and empty, but at the same time have deceiving depth, leaning against gallery walls as if discarded by the artist. On Kawara’s room of dated paintings from his ongoing Today series is a pristinely executed inquiry into time that manages to be both intimate and distant; the air is even ionized, and it feels somehow lighter as you inhale and exhale within the space.

diabeacon_heizer
Michael Heizer, North, South, East, West, from Dia:Beacon website

Meanwhile, the gaping holes of Michael Heizer‘s North, South, East, West (right) are an exploration into illusions of infinity, simultaneously mesmerizing and terrifying.  And one could spend hours in Zoe Leonard’s You see I am here after all exhibition — reading the text and studying the subtle differences in printing of the 4,000 vintage postcards of Niagara Falls, collected by the artist over the course of the year, getting lost in the stories of this place and forgetting any sense of space around you altogether.

(Not to be missed, by the way, is their bookstore, which, though small in size, houses a treasure trove of books on art, design, and theory from around the world.)

All in all, the collections of the Dia, much like the installation art in general, defy description, and beg instead to be experienced. And after all, isn’t that the point?

Dia:Beacon, Reggio Galleries, 3 Beekman Street, Beacon NY 12508 | Zoe Leonard’s You see I am here after all exhibition is on view until September 9, 2009

Saturday, February 21, 2009 4 comments
On the Rose Art Museum

On the Rose Art Museum

Editor’s Note The upsetting story of the Brandeis Trustees’ decision to close the Rose Art Museum and sell the entire collection has been circulating the internet for a while now.  My decision to go into art history and museum work was largely due to my wonderful experiences at the Frances Lehman Loeb Art Center at Vassar, and so I was deeply disturbed and saddened by what happened at Brandeis.  Below is an excerpt from an article in the Vassar student newspaper written by our equally concerned contributor, Gabrielle, on the event.  If you are interested in encouraging this decision to be revoked, please sign the ‘In Opposition to the Closing of the Rose Art Museum’ petition. –Chelsea

Art is a profitable commodity and always has been. But this is not an art auction at Sotheby’s or Christie’s. Brandeis is a reputable academic institution, and its art museum, much like Vassar’s Frances Lehman Loeb Art Gallery, is an indispensable resource for students, professors and members of the community. Furthermore, the Rose Art Museum has always supported itself by raising its own funds independently of the University. It prides itself on works of art from private donors, to many of whom the plan to close the museum was seen as a bald-faced insult.

[...] The Trustees are robbing the Brandeis community of a significant resource, and they’re tainting the University’s reputation in the process. Instead of cutting costs in multiple areas of the University, the trustees are striking a blow solely to the visual arts, compromising Brandeis’ reputation and credibility as a higher learning institution. Even if the Trustees were to re-open the museum in the future, under better economic conditions, who would donate to it, now that its reputation has been sacrificed?

The imperativeness of appreciating the resources available to us as students of the liberal arts is reinforced by Brandeis’ abrupt decision to close its art museum. Being able to study in an environment that values cultural exploration and resources is a luxury, not an entitlement. In a declining economy, nothing is certain and nothing can be taken for granted—least of all art.

Read Gabrielle’s full article at the Miscellany News website.
For more information on this topic, see the most recent article in the NY Times, which reports that the building will “remain open as a teaching and studio facility;” Tyler Green’s Q&A with Michael Rush, Rose Art Museum director; as well as CultureGrrl’s wrap-up of the responses to the incident.

Monday, February 16, 2009 0 comments
Getting back to basics

Getting back to basics

Today, for the first time, I had the great fortune to don a pair of curator’s gloves, sit down in front of a museum-acquisitioned painting, and examine the work I was holding up with my own hands.

This post is a little more personal, persay, than I’d ever really planned to write in this blog, but I wanted to share this experience and the thoughts it’s inspired.  I’m in a museum studies seminar this semester.  It takes place in the art museum on my university’s campus and is taught by the museum’s director.

In the course, as you can see, we have the opportunity to engage with works of art literally firsthand.  And one of the things I’m learning from being able to do this is the importance of getting back to the basics.  When you look at art, especially if you know a bit or even a lot about art history, it’s so easy to get carried away by what (you think) you know.  The class emphasizes focusing on what we can SEE — not the figures or objects depicted on its surface or sculpted shapes, but the actual material the painting is made with and on, the substance the sculpture’s been made out of.  For example, even if you can’t pick up a work of art, you can still go to an art museum and do essentially exactly what we did in class this week.  Without looking at the label, and divorcing the work from the objects in the galleries around it as much as possible, decide what material the support (or backing — like canvas, wood panel, paper) of the work is made out of.  Look at the texture of the surface; the way the pigmet (paints or charcoal, etc.) sits on it; look at the edges of the support against the frame.

These details have the potential to tell you so much more about the work of art than simply by looking at what the artist depicted on it (though of course, that’s still important!).  The type of wood, for example, can tell you what time it was made in, or even place — northern artists in the Renaissance favored a heavier, denser wood, southern artists a lighter, thicker type like poplar.  The quality of the paint — if it’s shiny or flat, if it has a yellow tint — can tell you what sort of technique the artist used: was it oil, with many painstaking layers, was it varnished, was it brushed on quickly?

Things like this can only be seen in person.  Of course, that ties back in to the importance of museums and going to see what are really looks like up close.  And obviously the experience of actually holding a painting — of lifting it up to see how heavy it is, helping identify what kind of wood the paneling could be — isn’t something you can do in an art museum.  But looking really closely, examining its edges, beginning to deduce its history?  That, anyone can do.

Thursday, January 29, 2009 0 comments
Highlights of Brussels

Highlights of Brussels

artinreallife_brussels

The Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium holds some of the finest Flemish and French art in Europe.  Ever wondered what these masterpieces look like up close?  Not to worry — here are shots of some of my favorite works in their collection, as well as many of the beautiful museum itself.  The building, located in Brussels, in fact houses two museums: the Museum of Ancient Art and the Museum of Modern art (explained in the captions below).  This is the second in the Art History Blog’s series called Art in Real Life, which aims to give context to some of the world’s greatest masterpieces of art.

Click on any of the pictures below to open the gallery; click next (or type “n” on your keyboard) to view the next photo.

TAHB’s Art in Real Life series: Paris | Brussels | Rome

Wednesday, January 14, 2009 0 comments