Vasily Kandinsky, French, born Russia. 1866–1944
Untitled
1913
Watercolor, India ink, and pencil on paper mounted on board
19 1/2 x 25 1/2" (49.6 x 64.8 cm)
Musée national d'art moderne/ Centre de création industrielle, Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris. Gift of Mme Nina Kandinsky
image source: http://pavlinachakarova.com/blog/?p=926
Towards the end of the 19th century artists were abandoning traditional ways of art making. These artists were opposed to the mainstream cultural values of society and sought to go beyond the ideas and techniques that were culturally accepted. They deliberately isolated themselves and went from seeking acceptance to what is considered the “norm”, to broaden society’s perspective of what can be considered art. They expected the response from critics and the general public to be one of outrage. “Avant-garde” is the term used to describe this group of artists that sought to challenge traditional art and acceptance in society. Avant-garde artists pushed the possibilities of ‘what is art’ to the point where eventually it became the new ‘norm’. Avant-garde art reached its potential when the original goal to challenge society was fulfilled. Society grew to accept the innovating and shocking work that these artists introduced to the world.
The Museum of Modern Art in New York City is home to one of the most magnificent collections of modern art. From December 23, 2012 to April 15, 2013 the museum is presenting a selection of works including paintings, drawings, sculptures, books, films, photographs, atonal music and non-narrative dance to demonstrate the beginning of modernism’s greatest innovation: abstraction.
Inventing Abstraction, 1910-1925 is an exhilarating exhibition with works carefully chosen by curator Leah Dickerman. Her intentions for this exhibition were to display works of modern art in which recognizable subject matter was absent. The works chosen represent pure abstraction. Before entering the exhibition, you will notice a diagram which networks the artists who played a large role in the development of the new language of modern art. These artists are linked together to those they have a documented acquaintance with. This graph designated the idea that abstraction was not the development of one individual, rather it is a combination of brilliant minds in which empowered the movement to occur. Dickerman quotes, “Our primary thesis of the show is that abstraction is about relationships. It is a product of a whole vast group of people pushing each other to evermore radical positions. It’s as big a re-writing of the rules of cultural production as we’ve seen since the Renaissance.” Abstraction didn’t happen over night. It was a continuous notion that artists explored throughout time. Upon entering this exhibition I was excited to see such a large collection of abstract art shown together to tell the story of abstraction. Abstract art had such a strong impact on modern art as well as the art we create today. If it weren’t for the so called ‘rebel’ artists that challenged the traditional concepts of art which were accepted by society, artists today would still be making the same work we have seen for centuries.
This exhibition was a rewind-to-the-past, as it gave the public a visualization of art in the early 20th century. Museum goers were given the same thrill that was stimulated by these works of art during the time they were completed. My criticism wouldn’t be on the show itself, rather it is on the title of the exhibition, “Inventing Abstraction, 1910-1925” which describes the overall supposition of the show. It is hard to argue that abstraction was invented from 1910-1925. I would consider this to be the time abstraction was at the height of its development. This is the period abstraction emerged. It was thrilling, adventurous, as well as questionable to those who came to appreciate art and much of this was captured in this show. However, I would argue that abstraction began long before the 20th century.
From the mid-late 19th century the Impressionists were one of the first to step outside the comfort-zone in art making by painting ‘mere impressions’ of the natural world. They allow light and color to be the most important factor in their work. In 1877, George Abbot Mcneil Whistler completes his well known, Nocturne: Black and Gold- The Falling Rocket. This painting depicts complete abstraction, yet it is not considered abstract. Whistler explores the relationship of music and painting, similar to that of other painters included in this exhibition. In 1883, Claude Monet began his series paintings, which he is so well known for. Over several decades his imagery transforms from impressionist depictions of the world to broken strokes of color which resembles abstracted forms. In the 1880s, Paul Gauguin and Vincent van Gogh experiment with flat planes of color with little to no detail. This is where strict depictions of the subject is disregarded and it steered the way to the advancement of abstraction. Paul Cézanne’s simplified and dissected landscapes influence Picasso and Braque in developing Cubism. The Fauves experiment with unnatural uses of color to depict their subjects. (ISM). Claimed by Jed Perl, art critic of The New Republic, “abstraction, which arguably originated with the symbolist impulse in late-nineteenth-century art, was always less a matter of banishing reality than it was a matter of creating new realities, each of which had its own relationship with what the painters who in the nineteenth century set up their easels out of doors referred to as reality” (Perl). All in all, I don’t believe abstraction was invented from 1910-1925, it was then that it was at the height of its development.
Jerry Saltz, senior art critic for New York Magazine claimed the exhibition raises problems for the general public. Those who are ‘outsiders’ in the world of art look upon this work with uncertainty and dismay . The well known phrases such as “This is art?” or “Oh, I could do that!” can be heard more than once. He claims, “It can take a lifetime to understand not only why Kazimir Malevich’s white square on a white ground- still fissuring, still emitting aesthetic ideas today- is great art by why it’s a painting at all. That’s the philosophical sundering going on in some of this work, the thrill built into abstraction” (Saltz). Malevich’s Supremist Composition: White on White may be one of most controversial works the exhibition holds.
I am sure many have stared blankly at the white canvas containing a white square slightly off center. Many may have commented, ‘Really?’ Myself guilty of this reaction. I turned to a friend of mine who accompanied me on my trip to MoMA, “Now come on.” This was before I actually learned about Malevich and his simplistic works of art. I am ashamed I questioned it without knowing ‘why’ it was done. Malevich pushed the limits of abstraction to see what he could get away with, what was considered art anymore. He thought he could open the door to a new society with his newfound freedom. We need to forget everything about the past and abandon everything we know. He wanted to create a new visual vocabulary, a new meaning of art. This he certainly accomplished. Malevich’s White on White was one of the most radical paintings of it’s time, and it still receives the same criticism as it did then.
The exhibition’s curator, Leah Dickerman, tells the story of abstraction as it must have nothing to do with recognizable subject matter. She is wrong in the sense that all recognizable subject matter must be abandoned in order to be abstract. Argued by Jed Perl, art critic of The New Republic, claims that “the trouble with the way Dickerman tells this story... She emphasizes the nobility of artists who were either on the verge of entirely banishing recognizable subject matter or had already done so.... In order to maintain the scheme of “Inventing Abstraction.” it sometimes seems that Dickerman is forced to willfully ignore the evidence before her eyes... If “recognizable subject matter” has been banished, how is it that so many of the works in the exhibition contain letters or numbers, which are recognizable to any child? ” (Perl). I agree with Perl’s point in which ‘recognizable subject matter’ is banned, yet there are works within this show that do have recognizable subject matter. The very first work in the show, Picasso’s Femme á la Mandoline may be controversial in this idea. Saltz claims that it is “an intriguing, dusky-colored 1910 work with cubistic compartments, shapes and slants. Apart from a curve that could be from a mandolin or a hint of a hip, there are almost no defining real-world featuers. This is Picasso coming this close to abstraction. Then he blinks. “There is no abstract art,” he stated. “You must always start with something...” (Saltz). This is true, there must always be a starting point, something that drives the idea to create an abstract work.
Overall I found MoMA’s Inventing Abstraction, 1910-1925 to be very intriguing. It is almost overwhelming with the amount of works that are included, but it gives We are given a revival of the thrill that was once startled society when this ‘new art’ came into place. The artists’ intent to challenge traditional art and outrage the public was successful. To this day, artists strive to challenge themselves to push their potentials to make a mark on art’s history. The artists in this exhibition clearly have done so.
ISM "Timeline of Abstract Art." Timeline. Illinois State Museum, n.d. Web. 05 Mar. 2013. <http://www.museum.state.il.us/ismdepts/art/Abstract/htmls/timeline.html>.
Perl, Jed. "The New Republic." The New Republic. The New Republic, 19 Jan. 2013. Web. 05 Mar. 2013. <http://www.newrepublic.com/article/art/111990/moma-inventing-abstraction-exhilirating-challenging-and-completely-wrong>.
Saltz, Jerry. "Saltz: MoMA's Inventing Abstraction Is Illuminating-Although It Shines That Light Mighty Selectively." Vulture. New York Media LLC, 6 Jan. 2013. Web. 05 Mar. 2013. <http://www.vulture.com/2013/01/saltz-on-inventing-abstraction-at-the-moma.html>.
No comments:
Post a Comment