Stout, Stout, Get it Worked Out!
Box Office Review: American Teens Are Morons
'Kick a Ginger Day' Spawned At Least 5 Attacks on Redheaded Kids
Intrepid L.A. Foodies Tackle 11-in-11 Nocturnal Challenge
Cool, Crafy, Community Event: Unique LA's Holiday Show
Last weekend my dad accompanied me to see the Salvador Dali exhibit at LACMA (although, to avoid a $20 cover and massive crowds, I’d opt for the $17 weekday peek). Nonetheless, and as expected, the exhibit was absolutely astonishing.
Upon leaving Dali we toured the famous Japanese Pavilion, which houses a good portion of LACMA’s permanent collection – art and artifacts spanning centuries, the scope of which is indescribable. We left the Pavilion awe-struck (once again). That said, I was really looking forward to our next stop - Southern California Art of the 60’s and 70’s from LACMA’s Collection.
The first exhibit piece here was a large canvas with rainbow-colored lines. Not quite inspiring, but, whatever… let’s see the rest. That’s when the sinking feeling started. As my father and I walked the room, he immediately proclaimed “What a bunch of junk!”, and, sadly, I had to agree. (I know, some of you want to claw my eyes out right now). The fact that these pieces are from LACMA’s permanent collection is truly disappointing, whatever their historical significance. After experiencing the Pavilion and tremendous Dali exhibit, this one was, well…just plain silly. LACMA, I love ya, but seriously, come on!
My father and I looked at: the burnt out old car with the metal people inside… the blank wall… the empty square glass box… Then we passed a white room where you have to take your shoes off to enter. Dad thought the shoes were part of an installation - that’s the level we’re talking about here. In retrospect, the rainbow canvas turned out to be the best piece in the building!
Writing about art for the ist has given me the opportunity to see some amazing work in this city over the past several months. Generally, the stuff I don’t like, I just don’t write up. But this exhibit really missed the mark, and may be worst I’ve seen yet. Not comparing apples to oranges, but it just doesn’t measure up. There’s better stuff out there – I’ve seen it (and continue to see it) all the time in galleries the size of LACMA’s janitor closet.
The Southern California Art exhibit runs through March 30th, 2008 (if you must), but I strongly suggest waiting to eat your lunch afterwards.
photo by edenjet from LAist Featured Photos via Flickr
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I couldn't agree more.
How did someone with no knowledge or appreciation of art and art history wind up critiquing shows for laist? You sound like a 13 year old on a field trip. The reviewers tone is very snotty; mocking seminal artists like Ed Kienholz, etc.... Just because you "don't get it" doesn't mean it's bad and has no value. Do you have no intellectual curiosity or imagination? Ever heard of Conceptualism? Chat up the folks running any of the galleries in LA next time you visit one, they can probably school you on the art you so callously and casually dismissed. I don’t love every piece of art I see and I don’t expect anyone to love everything. Personal opinion has a place, but do try to be a little objective, and maybe read up on something you don’t understand. They have those little brochures in the LACMA exhibits, perhaps you could look at them for background on the pieces. Or, make use of the gift shop and crack an art history book.
I hear Finnegan’s Wake is a bit of a confusing read for some too. Guess that makes it crap.
you probably should stick to not writing about the things you don't like. lacma can perhaps be faulted for not giving more of a historical context to their installation (by way of wall texts or handouts i suppose), but this review reads like a forced high school assignment.
you wouldn't send a celine dion fan to review an l.a. punk show, and you probably shouldn't send a dali fan to review an exhibit based on regional minimalism and pop.
Oh snap, mharwitt!
(Oh snap, mharwitt!)In a good way, of course :)
thanks. good call on finnegan's wake too.
Says Mharwitt: "You probably should stick to not writing about the things you don't like..."
I guess that could be considered constructive criticism of a sort but it's pretty much as trite as it is off-putting. If writers followed that kind of guidance there'd be a lot of fawning, glorifying pap out there. And hardly any blogs.
And for what it's worth while frankly I gag at just the thought of Celine Dion, I would probably get a kick reading her impressions of a punk show.
hey pal, she said it. i was just supporting her original inclination.
and i definitely believe in critical writing, but intelligent criticism. explain to me what anyone could gain from "i didn't get it. it sucks!"
i suppose you're right though. probably shouldn't be reading laist for that.
I've seen the exhibit. I do get it. It does suck.
I've also seen the exhibit. There is plenty to "get". Some of it is great, most of it is not.
itd be a fine permanant exhibit in a lesser city, but as someone who truly enjoys going to museums when i travel, if any visitor ever asks me about LACMA, i point them elsewhere unless there happens to be a killer special exhibit.
LA deserves better and we wont get it unless people like Jennifer keep it real.
with that said, the Magritte exhibit at the beginning of this year was totally great - top to bottom - literally.
keep keeping it real Jennifer.
ignore those who are easily pleased by mediocrity.
Well, as it is an exhibit geared towards what was happening in the LA art scene of that era, I am not sure that I get the point you are trying to make here, Tony. Why would a “lesser city” have such a regional focus on modernist LA art? LACMA is no MOMA by any means, but I think they are on the right track by collecting LA centric artists for their permanent collection. Mediocrity is in the eye of the beholder. Across the entire art world in the 60s-70s conceptualist art was king; in other words, not everything is on the page or canvas. Conceptual art is art which questions the very nature of what is understood as art. Assemblage and Pop Art are also more about the thought process behind the work. A lot of work from that period is not as accessible and easily digested as a Magritte or Dali exhibit. That’s why Magritte, Dali, Monet, etc… are made into calendars and are such a huge part of Art 101 courses. That is why each year every museum in the US has a basic crowd pleaser type show, featuring the names everyone knows, the Dave Matthews of the art world. . Keeps the cash flowing. In contrast, consider “Back Seat Dodge 38” as the Pixies. Not pretty, hard, and more than a little disturbing. Modernist works are harder sells for most people, as they are not as decorative and require more work on the viewer’s part. The emphasis is not on craft.
“It sucked” is not a review, even if one thinks it sucked. Magritte and Dali both received plenty of bad reviews in their careers; many thought their work was amateurish garbage by the standards of the day. Negative reviews happen; it is part of any creative process after all. Just sayin’ that they should be a bit more erudite.
And I get your need to defend your columnist, but for those in the arts, we would appreciate her maybe trying a second draft when “keeping it real”.
And by the way, it ain't my favorite exhibit either, but to dismiss it all without any examination, that is a problem for me.