Note: I have now seen all four of the current Picasso exhibitions and they are posted here in the reverse order in which I saw them, that having to do with the order in which they were written and posted. I believe they will make sense if read in this order. gm.
Many years ago I realized that one could get some kind of education in the arts by attending museum lectures and while I have always thought that that was a very good idea, when I saw the announcement for the series of three Picasso lectures accompanying this exhibition, I realized that in fifty years of visiting the Met I had never once stepped into the Grace Rainey Rogers Auditorium. (My road to hell is otherwise handsomely paved as well.) Because I am so curious at present about the works of Picasso I decided to order tickets at once.
Recently I found the Met Museum page on You Tube and so I wondered if I might not be paying good money for something I could see for free on the internet, but as an old theatergoer I know that there is a difference between seeing something “live” and something on tape or film. And in this case there was a big difference. I have seen the speaker, Gary Tinterow, Englehard Chairman of Nineteenth and Twentieth century and Contemporary Art, on some of the You Tube tapes, but seeing him in person was a very different experience. On tape he looks small. (The camera is above him and looking down. Big mistake.). But in person he is large and has a commanding presence. He is also very amiable, he has a rich baritone voice, and he relates in a very professional and personal way to the members of the audience which charm he does not always have when speaking directly to a machine that only stares at him. He is an ideal spokesperson for the museum …the listener feels himself included in the work of the organization.
After the second lecture I bought the catalogue for the exhibition and when I got it home and began reading it I realized that Mr. Tinterow was merely repeating to us, seemingly without notes, the material that it contained. So it then became my hope that he might offer something in the way of an aside or two that would justify the expense and effort of my lecture-going. He did.
I would say that the most exciting moment in these lectures was that time when he first used the word “quotation”. When discussing architecture it is common for repeated and familiar details and forms in new buildings to be spoken of as references or as “quotations” of other and usually earlier works. Yet when discussing Picasso’s work it is most commonly said that he stole ideas from this person or that, theft being inferred as his common coin. Only a year ago I heard a docent at MOMA telling his tour group that Picasso would steal anything that wasn’t nailed down. I was livid. Quotation! Quotation! Quotation! Well, bless Gary Tinterow for using the correct language. I hope this becomes standard museum practice …all over town!
He mentioned on two occasions that Picasso was an intellectual and an avid reader and specifically that he read Freud extensively. I would also think that he had read Carl Jung. Picasso makes so many references to classical mythology and to the figures within those mythologies that I would think he was working in his own way with components of the collective unconscious.
He mentioned that Picasso often used classical paintings or drawings as a source for making a new painting, that it merely offered him a starting point for a drawing or painting. That, I think, is an insight that needs to be followed up in regard to Picasso’s work. Yes he did reference or quote other works, as most artists have done, and he did it throughout his lifetime, not just in the series from master paintings he did late in his life. Despite those references he made the work his by working in his own painting vocabulary and by using the source as a means to express his feelings about something. But his is decidedly painting that often originates inside a museum and I am aware of his admiration for Cezanne and of Cezanne’s admonition to painters to get out of the museum and to redo Poussin “from life”. This dichotomy in Picasso’s work …from life/from paintings … is a very good area for future study.
Discussing the works of the young Picasso Gary Tinterow showed slides of the works that had inspired him, works by Puvis de Chavannes, El Greco, Gauguin, and Toulouse Lautrec. What he did not mention but which was immediately apparent to me, sitting at a distance in the audience, was that all of those artists had one thing in common, beyond the fact that they were all very popular at that time, an attainment that would not have been lost on the very ambitious young Spaniard: namely, that each made very passive paintings. As a result we can see that same passivity in Picasso’s imitation Lautrec’s, and in his blue and rose period works. It is almost as if the young artist was tentative in all that he did, not quite certain exactly where he wanted to go with his talent. Quoting those particular passive painters gave him breathing space.
I say breathing space because originally when Picasso left Barcelona he had wanted to go to Munich but did not have the money to do so. Munich at that time was where all the action was in regard to modern painting. Paris, though desirable, was his second choice. (In American art see Marsden Hartley). And I say breathing space because of the fact that Picasso had been trained as an academic painter…he needed a period of time to feel his way into “something” different, if not different, something that spoke exclusively to his moment in time, to his “age”.
Another area where I think Picasso scholarship could focus its inquiry is in the way that Picasso painted. Having been trained academically his imitation and referencing earlier and well regarded modern painters would have shown him alternative methods for creating works on canvas with paint. The fame and approval given to the other painters would have legitimized his first explorations of similar paint application. In looking at the paintings in the galleries it can be seen that early on Picasso worked in a number of methods …from thin washes to thick impastos …and sometimes both. One of the very wonderful aspect of the catalogue is that for each work listed and shown there is at the end of each entry a set of technical notes describing in detail how each painting and drawing was made and with what and on what materials.
In regard to that “something” different I think we can accept as true the observation that from the 1907 Paris exhibition of Cezanne’s paintings Picasso would have seen that the surfaces of those paintings were not flat and passive but that they were broken up into a rhythmic dynamic. Picasso first exhibited his concept of surface dynamic in the cubist works he made with Braque beginning just after that exhibition.
I think if one were to follow his development as a painter, one would find that there are two dominates in his work: that which is expressed and the concept which permits the expressiveness. While the concept is very important I think it does not have more weight than the expressiveness. A third element of a painting, the finish, seems to have been of less importance to him.
As for his copying the “masters” of his day I was reminded of Emerson’s essay, The Uses of Great Men, in which he encouraged young artists and future public figures to choose a hero from the pantheon of great men and to model one’s life, to role play, until one found his own voice. The danger of this, of course was suggested by Ezra Pound who warned that many young writers begin their careers by imitating writers they admire and that most writers never get beyond this initial stage of imitation.
Finally, I was hoping that something would be said that would help me to better understand cubism. It is often spoken of as an amalgamation of different views of the same subject. While that might be true of the subject in the center of the format, it does nothing to explain those areas of the format between the subject and the edges of the format, the surround. One comment that Gary Tinterow made that I appreciated, was that in his referencing African art, Picasso was using repeated shapes, rhymes, from the figure, and incorporating them into the surround. Good clue. Add to that Cezanne’s surface dynamic and I think we might be on to something.
Before moving into the galleries, I want to repeat what was said at the opening of the lectures. With the economy being what it is there has been much talk about museums doing exhibitions now from their holdings as this is generally thought to be less expensive. Mr. Tinterow told us that in this case it was not. Every Picasso work in the museum was studied, reevaluated, and cleaned. All of the prints were reframed. He said that in the end the work done cost many times more than a loan exhibition would have cost.
In the New York Times review of the show the writer commented that by putting all of the Picasso works on view the museum and the benefactors could get a very clear idea what areas of this collection needed to be enhanced and expanded. While that might seem cynical on the face of it, it does seem a good idea nonetheless. Gary Tinterow stated that the museum collection was one of three in this country that covered the full range of Picasso’s career. Picasso is credited with having created thousands of art works …sometimes as many as 30,000. Despite its breadth of about 500 art works, (by contrast the Picasso Museum in Paris has three thousand works), in sum this collection looks very thin.
In part that has to do with an agreement back in the 40’s and 50’s among the three leading museums in New York City. But that is another story. If the Met Museum is at fault it is because some fifty years have passed since that agreement ended and it appears that they have not increased their Picasso holdings. As for there being Picasso works on the market I think any six paintings from the Late Paintings Exhibition at the Gagosian Gallery a year ago would make an obviously handsome addition to this collection. (See this blog, April 2009.)
The Metropolitan Museum of Art cares for 34 Picasso paintings, 58 drawings, watercolors, and pastels, 2 sculptures, 10 ceramic plaques, and 400 Picasso prints. Seen altogether this is a very impressive collection. Yet considering the venue, one of the world’s foremost art museums, it seems inadequate. Perhaps the most stunning painting is the iconic and well known Gertrude Stein portrait. But there are others that are almost equally as good …Seated Harlequin, 1901, The Blind Man’s Meal, 1903, The Actor, 1905, Bust of a Man, 1908, Still Life with Bottle of Rum, 1911, (apparently one of only three analytic cubist paintings in the collection, albeit a very good one …but I can see five to a dozen in any other museum …you get my drift.), Woman in White, 1923, Mandolin, Fruit Bowl and Plaster Arm, 1925, Harlequin, 1927, Head of a Woman, 1927, The Dreamer, 1932, Reading at a Table, 1934, Woman and Musketeer, 1967. All of these are absolutely wonderful but, again, this is the Met, and with all of these filling, let’s say, Gallery One, lacking a Gallery 2, one feels himself coming up short much sooner than he had expected.
Among the best drawings are works from the Alfred Stieglitz collection, given to the museum in 1949 by Georgia O’Keefe. (See also the Philadelphia Museum Picasso exhibition below.) Considering the art works I’ve seen in the last year from these bequests to various museums I can’t think of an exhibition I would rather see than to have all of those works together again. Mr. Stieglitz seems to me to have had the very best eye of the twentieth century. Encore. Encore.
One wonderful surprise in this exhibition was the discovery of such a large number of pastels. Pastel is one of my favorite mediums and I had no idea that Picasso had made any if not so many. Each of them is splendid. Unlike his paintings, which often have the quality of having been dashed off in an afternoon, each of these looks to have been lovingly and carefully laid on the paper in a very academic frame of mind …Shades of Chardin! These raised a thousand questions but I won’t ask them here.
The gallery of cubist works is arranged in the order in which the works were made and it gives tremendous insight into the development of cubism and into the mind of the artist and what he was attempting to do.
One of the most exciting moments of this exhibition was walking into a gallery and being overwhelmed by number of prints on display from the 347 Suite. While it is only 118 prints filling a very large room, it seemed to be many hundreds more. I was reminded of Oscar Wilde’s dictum: Nothing succeeds like excess. Picasso is considered one of the great twentieth century draughtsman credited with having created over 2,500 prints. The gallery with the 347 Suite brought home a small indication of the magnitude of that achievement.
I was also favorably impressed by the lighting in this gallery. Once again a museum is using the permanent ceiling track lights but here the lamps are closer to the wall, they are used to create a wall wash rather than to highlight each art work, and as a result there are no glaring reflections of light fixtures and no reflection of the viewer in the glass over the art works. I don’t know why other art museum cannot resolve the problems with their lighting in such a simple manner.
But the highlight of this exhibition was, for me, the Mr. and Mrs. Charles Kramer Collection of Picasso Linocuts. Over the years I have seen Picasso linocuts in books, but only a few of them, and I had no idea that he had made so many. In total, I believe, there are about 150 in this series. The Kramer collection has 140 of them. The linoleum surface is without grain and practically without resistant and to see what Picasso has carved into them, using what I ascertain from all of his work as his preference for a thick line, and printed in a very limited palette, is stunning. It is especially stunning when so many are seen occupying a single gallery.
One of the great pleasures I find in museum going is to be introduced to collections of works with a very limited focus …I think of the Bergman Collection of Contemporary Drawings in the Chicago Art Institute and the Schnitzler Collection of Han Dynasty tomb figures in the museum in Portland, Oregon. More so than the larger collections, the Chester Dale’s and the Samuel Kress’s, I find these small collections to be far more personal and exciting. Rather than overwhelming they are inspiring.
This is an excellent exhibition, well designed and laid out, well interpreted, and with good, professional lighting.
This is a link to a tour of the exhibit on You Tube:
http://www.youtube.com/user/metmuseum
This is the link to the Met Museum page featuring the Picasso exhibit:
http://www.metmuseum.org/special/se_event.asp?OccurrenceId={CD70B3F0-D1B8-4501-9B63-085D213E0E9B}&HomePageLink=special_c2a
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Post a Comment