moca cleveland
Is it worth the three hour drive...yes! I had been to moca cleveland about a little over a year ago (thus the green trees pic above - I forgot to get an establishing shot this time) but not to see any certain show in particular. This time it was mission: dana schutz. I attended her lecture at ccs and fell even more in love with her paintings so I knew I had to go see her works in person. And it is well worth it to see them in person: the works are highly textural with plops of oil paint and painterly hatching strokes of flourescent, intense color. The color was even better in person: better than any picture I have seen on the internet and the layout of the massive show was quite impressive. Her giant paintings filled two massive exhibition spaces. Although the museum had many "eyes" I was able to take some pics of the show in hopes to lure more people to attend the show. So GO, GO!
Here's a great example of the built up layers and oil clumps on the surface!
Also on display in the back circular room: Richard Long, Cornwall Circle, slate.
and....Olivo Barbieri photographs. These pics look like photographs of model setups but they are actual aerial photographs of international cities using a tilt-shift lens camera. I really loved these photos!
posted by art blogs are fun at 6:04 PM
11 Comments:
Ann,
How ironic. I went to see the show on Saturday as well. It was well worth the trip and yes the color and physicality of the paint is tremendous in person.
As much as I did like the show I found myself wanting more or I guess I was a little disappointed about what work was chosen for the exhibition. Did you notice the catalog included a lot more work then what was actually in the show? Maybe the selection differed from venue to venue? Anyway, some work was left out that I thought would have made for an even better exhibition.
The only other problem I had with some of the work in the show, or her work in general, is the choices she makes in regards to subject matter. The painting's that involve rock bands or say the portrait of PJ Harvey are not as interesting for me as those that have political or psychological narratives. They're certainly well painted but there nowhere near as compelling.
Even with these little disappointments though I'm glad I went.
P.S. You should have also mentioned the Catherine Opie photographs. They were fantastic.
I understand what you are saying about say the PJ Harvey painting - I agree it was well painted but not one of my favorites but it still felt like it fit with the rest of the show. I don't know if you attended her lecture but she talked about the thought behind the "music portraits" so I was happy to PJ in person. I wasn't bothered by the curation...I felt like the key pieces were in the show. The catalog was also worth the splurge too!
I also splurged on the catalog. I couldn't help it. And I bought a meat pillow! Did you see those?
Anyway, I was at the lecture and I don't quite remember what she said about the band paintings. The other work is just my preference that's all.
In regards to curation, I guess I would have been happy to see more of the large pieces or more of my personal favorites. Selfish, but they went for balance which was good and probably more important.
Feels like magazine illustration to me. Did she go to CCS?
she went to school in cleveland - Cleveland Institute of Art - thus the connection.
oh yeah, then mfa at columbia in 2002.
She visited my studio with her high school class when she was a teenager!!
I know I mentioned this before, but it still blows my mind!
Thanks, Ann, for posting the pics....I am definitely going to see this show!
The reflection in that last image is fantastic.
sorry this is totally off topic, but I just met a guy who is desperately looking to rent out his house in Ferndale. I figured some people on here might be interested. his email is dpruccol@stmarys-ca.edu.
ann- do you know how long the show will be up until? I would love to get down and see it.
I just had a moment of clarity and I realized that I'm an asshole for critizing Ann's photography. I now accept that a) Ann was trying to take the pictures without the guard noticing, b) It is difficult to shoot artwork that is behind glass and c) These pictures are simply for reference, they are not intended to be a substitute for looking at the actual artwork. Thanks Ann!
Damn them for trying to preserve the integrity of the art by prohibiting photography!!!
Post a Comment
<< Home