Finch Blasts MoMA in Pointless Rant
In a review called "The Hollow Museum," art critic and renowned complainer Charlie Finch rips The Museum of Modern Art. Most of his critiques lack explanation other than base and superficial observations. He seems to really be focusing on the minutiae and missing the much larger, more important and more positive aspects of the museum. For example, Finch claims "one can't even enjoy the majestic horizontal view of the MoMA garden anymore without copping a reservation at the chic restaurant, which now aligns with it." Sorry Charlie, maybe you should get around the museum a little more and appreciate some of the other views which never existed in the old museum.
In a two paragraph, four sentence "review" of Cezanne/Pissarro, Finch dismisses the show as just another "bland 'compare and contrast' snore of Pre-Impressionist landscapes," missing altogether the importance of the relationship between the two artists and the impact it had on Impressionism as an artistic movement. In a more in-depth review of the exhibition, the also typically cranky and unforgiving Jerry Saltz at least provides a coherent explanation for his negative review, however he rather superciliously declares that "MoMA loves putting its big guys together," simultaneously overstating MoMA's affiliation with both artists and reaffirming my belief that he's a pretentious know-it-all.
In the current exhibition, just two works come from MoMA's permanent collection, Pines and Rocks and L'Estaque, both by Cezanne. All other works in the show are loans from various institutions as near as the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Guggenheim and as far as The Museum of Modern Art, Gunma, Japan and The State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg, Russia. In fact, within MoMA's permanent collection, there are only four works by Pissarro, all prints or illustrated books; no paintings. Combined with the 24 total Cezanne's in MoMA's collection (only 10 of which are paintings), the point is clear: While both artists may have had an enormous impact on modern art, neither could accurately be called MoMA's "big guys."
Getting back to Finch, he does get one thing right; "Pioneering Modern Painting" does come off a bit academic in its "compare and contrast" hanging, yet I think when attempting to examine the relationship between the two artists, who, as Saltz points out, often painted the "same subjects in the same places at the same time," hanging it any other way would look incongruous and utterly disorganized. To this Finch might suggest that the exhibition should have been abandoned altogether, however to do so would be to ignore a tremendously influential artistic relationship that helped define Cezanne's style specifically as well as the style of art in the late 19th century more generally.
Finch's attack on Lee Friedlander's photographs is equally unfounded. Other than a superficial assessment of his cityscapes as "infected by sameness" and his self-portraits as "pug ugly," Finch provides no actual explanation for his disliking of the exhibition. He feels compelled to admit that "[t]he only mildly arresting stuff here is Friedlander's color album covers of Miles Davis and Aretha [Franklin]." These two works, along with four other color photos are the opening of the show and I'm curious as to whether or not Mr. Finch even made it to the final gallery, where Friedlander's 1990's landscapes are located. These works are wonderfully rich images created through the natural depth and texture of the landscape that, in many cases, look remarkably like abstract expressionist paintings.
I would find it quite a pity that Finch's rather narrow perspective of Friedlander's work allows him to overlook such incredible photographs were it not for his nauseating arrogance. Although he would like you to believe it is the arrogance of MoMA to promote such art, particularly in the new building's design, with the installation as it currently exists, it is in fact his own shortcomings as an art critic that discredit his position and make his complaints irritating and quite trivial.
It is true that MoMA's new building makes it difficult to have an intimate interaction with the art, in part because of the enormous crowds. This is a problem with many museums, not just MoMA and there really isn't an obvious solution. One could argue that time-stamped tickets could rectify the problem by controlling the number of people in the galleries at any given time, however you will invariably get crowds around the museum's main attractions. My solution would be to have less people like Charlie Finch taking up space so that those who do visit the museum may have a more pleasurable experience, surrounded by world-class art in a building that is not only more conducive to viewing the art than the previous one, but allows for twice as much to be shown and in innovative and exciting ways. In short, I suggest that Mr. Finch stop complaining and start enjoying the art.
In a two paragraph, four sentence "review" of Cezanne/Pissarro, Finch dismisses the show as just another "bland 'compare and contrast' snore of Pre-Impressionist landscapes," missing altogether the importance of the relationship between the two artists and the impact it had on Impressionism as an artistic movement. In a more in-depth review of the exhibition, the also typically cranky and unforgiving Jerry Saltz at least provides a coherent explanation for his negative review, however he rather superciliously declares that "MoMA loves putting its big guys together," simultaneously overstating MoMA's affiliation with both artists and reaffirming my belief that he's a pretentious know-it-all.
In the current exhibition, just two works come from MoMA's permanent collection, Pines and Rocks and L'Estaque, both by Cezanne. All other works in the show are loans from various institutions as near as the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Guggenheim and as far as The Museum of Modern Art, Gunma, Japan and The State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg, Russia. In fact, within MoMA's permanent collection, there are only four works by Pissarro, all prints or illustrated books; no paintings. Combined with the 24 total Cezanne's in MoMA's collection (only 10 of which are paintings), the point is clear: While both artists may have had an enormous impact on modern art, neither could accurately be called MoMA's "big guys."
Getting back to Finch, he does get one thing right; "Pioneering Modern Painting" does come off a bit academic in its "compare and contrast" hanging, yet I think when attempting to examine the relationship between the two artists, who, as Saltz points out, often painted the "same subjects in the same places at the same time," hanging it any other way would look incongruous and utterly disorganized. To this Finch might suggest that the exhibition should have been abandoned altogether, however to do so would be to ignore a tremendously influential artistic relationship that helped define Cezanne's style specifically as well as the style of art in the late 19th century more generally.
Finch's attack on Lee Friedlander's photographs is equally unfounded. Other than a superficial assessment of his cityscapes as "infected by sameness" and his self-portraits as "pug ugly," Finch provides no actual explanation for his disliking of the exhibition. He feels compelled to admit that "[t]he only mildly arresting stuff here is Friedlander's color album covers of Miles Davis and Aretha [Franklin]." These two works, along with four other color photos are the opening of the show and I'm curious as to whether or not Mr. Finch even made it to the final gallery, where Friedlander's 1990's landscapes are located. These works are wonderfully rich images created through the natural depth and texture of the landscape that, in many cases, look remarkably like abstract expressionist paintings.
I would find it quite a pity that Finch's rather narrow perspective of Friedlander's work allows him to overlook such incredible photographs were it not for his nauseating arrogance. Although he would like you to believe it is the arrogance of MoMA to promote such art, particularly in the new building's design, with the installation as it currently exists, it is in fact his own shortcomings as an art critic that discredit his position and make his complaints irritating and quite trivial.
It is true that MoMA's new building makes it difficult to have an intimate interaction with the art, in part because of the enormous crowds. This is a problem with many museums, not just MoMA and there really isn't an obvious solution. One could argue that time-stamped tickets could rectify the problem by controlling the number of people in the galleries at any given time, however you will invariably get crowds around the museum's main attractions. My solution would be to have less people like Charlie Finch taking up space so that those who do visit the museum may have a more pleasurable experience, surrounded by world-class art in a building that is not only more conducive to viewing the art than the previous one, but allows for twice as much to be shown and in innovative and exciting ways. In short, I suggest that Mr. Finch stop complaining and start enjoying the art.
posted by Corey Wyckoff at 12:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home