The Wadsworth

“Bunch of Banged Up Beetles”

The Wadsworth Museum in Hartford, Connecticut, has an exhibition from a Swiss photographer, Arnold Odermatt who was a police photographer. The exhibit’s official title is “Calm Following the Chaos of Car Wrecks.” In other words, the images portray the ‘calm after the storm,’ this is not referring to an actual storm, but the aftermath of car accidents or wrecks. Instead of showing horrific accidents with dead bodies, injuries, or the car in flames, Odermatt was able to describe what happened without such gruesome overtones.
The exhibition consisted of ten to fifteen pictures, depicting different Beetles, in various colors and circumstance: their proximity to each other, extreme angles of the damage, incredible detail and location. There were a few images where a given Beetle is in a two-car collision or a collision with a trailer. Others depicted a car in water, whether it be a flood or in a pond. Some of the photographs showed the vehicle turned on its side or even upside down. My favorite picture of this kind is an accident where the car is flipped up on its side. There does not appear to be any direct damage to the car (aside from one headlight) or the surrounding area. The fence directly next to it, which seems as if it is no more than two inches away, had not even been disturbed nor had the ground.
One shot, in particular, was of a Volkswagen Beetle settled on a road, submerged halfway in water with a lake in the background. It is a very picturesque image. The light used is basic daylight which appeared to have been about midday or early afternoon. This piece struck me due to the fact that it looks as if the individual was simply driving along and the vehicle was overcome by the rushing water. Odermatt had a talent for telling a story with his work, yet there is enough information missing to keep his audience guessing. That is what I love about this photograph: the suspense of the unknown – as I try to fill in the blanks. As a whole, the picture is elegant (like I find most black and white photography) and almost peaceful, even with the water advancing and consuming the road. As treacherous as such the situation had the potential to be, the abandoned car and surroundings leave the viewer with tranquility. The mountains fade off in the distance and evergreens stretch out through the background as the strip of road swings up to the left; actually, the Volkswagen seems completely out of place, which adds to its appeal.
A similarly striking photograph was “Bouchs, 1965,” the one of the Beetle in the lake. The picture reminds me of a romantic painting. There is this overwhelming sense of calm with the light clouds floating past and the sunlight dancing upon the ripples of the lake. The jagged mountains, in the background, fade in the uncertain light. The lone tree is a powerful element, juxtaposing the position of the car – sinking into the shimmering waters. The image is so pretty it makes you forget that something terrible had to happen for the car to end up out in the water so far and in such a smashed state.
Another great aspect of these pictures is that they show distant people or policemen, and the white lines that the policemen drew to show how the accident happened. These pictures were very realistic. You could easily imagine yourself just passing by and seeing this scene. I wish I could see Odermatt’s other pictures from the similar accidents since this exhibit is specifically a concentration on Volkswagen Beetles. It would be interesting to see what other similarities can be found in other cars during his years of photography in the police department. These pictures did not focus on one season, day, or even time of day. There are some of the pictures with snow, some which looked like a spring day, and some you could not tell what season it is. There are some in the countryside and some in a more populated setting. I like his versatility and I realize that he was taking these photos in order to document and record the circumstances and conditions of the accidents; however, he found such a unique way in capturing the essence of what happened. His photographs are a hauntingly graphic portrayal of tragedy yet convey such beautiful serenity.

The Whitney

This isn't my picture. For some reason mine uploaded onto the Class Blog,but not here, so I found a picture on the web.

“Futurism at the Brooklyn Bridge”

I was not impressed with the Whitney Museum. Two of their floors were closed for installations of new exhibits. The fourth floor consisted of Styrofoam art. The first had, what I can only presume to call, tin foil art. The fifth floor consisted of more two-dimensional art, such as drawings. The genre I ultimately decided to choose from was that of “Industry and Art: Precisionism.” The artist’s name is Joseph Stella. His painting was called “The Brooklyn Bridge – Variation of an Old Theme.”
What drew me to this painting was my love of New York City. I have walked over the Brooklyn Bridge from Manhattan to Brooklyn, and I have observed the city through the bridge itself. It is an impressive structure, daunting in size and capacity. I was not surprised to discover that Stella would use it as a symbol of the industrialized world. A massive undertaking, the construction of the Brooklyn Bridge would have been an incredible sight. The Brooklyn Bridge brought together a city and it a staple point of New York City itself. Stella was an immigrant who fell in love with the city, as many people do. He painted what he saw, through his eyes. The industrial era took on a new meaning in paintings. He brought the physical aspect of the bridge together with more virtual aspect of the city and the bridge. He saw the bridge from first step to last step. It was built in 1913, while this painting was created in 1939. Stella had an original painting, “The Brooklyn Bridge” which he did paint which the bridge was being built.
The painting uses vibrant colors. The bright blues and reds are the main colors that stood out at me. He shows the city through the sides Brooklyn Bridge, almost to ensure you can’t forget what you are looking at. On the bottom of the painting, Stella has skyline of Manhattan underneath the side view of the Brooklyn Bridge. Underneath this skyline, there is what I can only perceive to be headlights, almost emphasizing the use of the bridge, and that it is not for purely aesthetic purposes. The color red, as used here, can almost be seen to be the death that occurred in the making of the bridge. It demanded a lot of man power and the unfortunate side of the amount of effort is the obvious death that will occur. I do not know if Stella meant that to be the meaning of the color, but it seems to be the logical assumption.
Stella apparently came to this country to study medicine but decided painting suited him more. He loved the architecture of Lower Manhattan, where the Brooklyn Bridge originates from. He took incorporated ideas from Cubism and Futurism into his work. Cubism takes everything down to its primary elements, the shapes and contours. Futurism is considered more abstracted. You can clearly see both of these styles in “The Brooklyn Bridge – Variation of an Old Theme.” The boxy shapes and bold colors, almost brings the bridge to life more, then if it was done in more detail. You can see the image in your head as you walk away, knowing exactly what was in it. This is Stella’s genius. He realized the details, as important as they are, and he does have them within the painting, have to be second the overall painting. You need to admire the level of hard work Stella incorporated in his painting, and even then to revisit one of his paintings.
I had a hard time making heads and tails of this painting. I found the futurism quality deceiving in the meaning. Researching Stella made the painting take on a new meaning and make a little more sense. Between the vibrant colors and the subject being New York City, you can see Stella’s love for the city shining through. He chooses his subjects within the city to represent very carefully. There aren’t just any random sites, but those that make Manhattan what it is. The Empire State Building being the most obvious, though now the Brooklyn Bridge is as well known.

The MET

“Time-machine to Ancient Times”

The Metropolitan Museum of Art in Manhattan is an impressive museum. It has an extensive number of exhibits beginning with the Ancient Egypt exhibit. I have chosen this exhibit as I have always been fascinated with Ancient Egypt from when I first began to study them in fifth grade. It was very hard to choose which part of the exhibit to focus on. There were many media to choose from: drawings, to pottery, jewelry, sculpture, and then the sarcophagi. But, there was one part of the exhibit that struck me.
In one of the side rooms, there was a sarcophagus that in its own way reminded me of Russian dolls. There was one that went inside another, that went inside another, that went inside another until the outer shell. The core was the mummy. The outer most shell was the least decorated, or painted to then the most inner shell which was covered with color.
This was the sarcophagus of Kharushre. He was apart of the second half of Dynasty 22, which in our terms was 825-715 B.C.E. He was excavated by Gastin Maspero in 1885. The four outer shells of this sarcophagus are fully intact. According to the description, Kharushre was the door keeper of the House of Amun. Frankly, I was surprised he deserved the honor of the sarcophagus.
The outer most shell is made out of Coniferas wood. It has no decoration, is in a dark color, and very little detail. The face on the head of the sarcophagus is barely detailed, but enough so to tell who the sarcophagus belongs to. The second outer shell is very similar. It is made of a lighter color and simple decoration. The third shell is extremely detailed decoration. According to the description, at the top, Kharushre is being presented by Throth to the Lord Eternity and Anubis weighs the heart. The middle depicts Iris and Nephthys. The bottom of the sarcophagus has Doker boat inside Shuer. The fourth shell, and final before the mummy, is called the Cortonnage. Every available space is covered with color. The colors seem to be shading in blues and reds. According to the description, as I could not get close enough to this one to see very clearly, it had a ram-headed winged falcon. There are shrines with Horus. Horus’s falcons perched atop a ‘djed’ totem. There were also goddesses and demons with outstretched wings. Inside the Cortonnage would lie the mummy. The mummy is made of linen wrappings which are kept together and in place with straps.
I find the sarcophagi of ancient Egypt quite fascinating. Not only the time it would have taken to make these for those people who deserved this honor, but the level of art these undertakings demanded. People have known that art has existed in our society for a long time, but there are many people who consider art a more modern indulgence. With paint and camera stores everywhere, I find the ancient aspect of art has been lost to people. This is only how they chose to send their chosen in the afterlife. This doesn’t even begin to touch on the paintings inside the palaces. It is very unfortunate many of these paintings, all along the walls have been at least partly destroyed due to time and the ways of people. The care people had to show to establish the detail they did, the depths of the images, of the ancient Egyptians, only begins to convey their talent. They had one of the first forms of poetry, describing their gods and stories. This isn’t even touching on the mummy itself. Mummification preserves the body for a long time. They takeout the organs and put them into different vessels. This is supposed to help you in your next life. I chose this specific group of sarcophagi because many of the other sarcophagi at the museum were at least partially destroyed. Others had the paintings chipped away, noses broken off, and more damage. This set of sarcophagi was fully preserved.
I find the medium a great task to achieve. The ancient Egyptians had to first create the sarcophagus in the image of the person they are trying to represent. Then the drawings had to depict certain scenes used to describe their rankings, who they worshipped, and about them in general, and then mummify the person to put into this. I am not sure on my feelings for how it was displayed. This is a persons grave, and we would not see fit to disturb anyone else’s grave and exhibit it the same way.

The Guggenheim

“Prince and the Stolen Photographs”

The Guggenheim Museum was a very different museum experience. The circular structure makes the art take on a life of their own. You follow the spiral downwards from top to bottom, and can get lost in the movement surrounding the exhibits. Robert Prince’s “Spiritual America” almost has this sense of traveling as you move through it. It has its own journey Prince seems to expect you to embark on.
Prince’s exhibit has invoked vast responses from different groups of people. Many of the journals, newspaper people, and critics do not seem to appreciate his work. For the most part I can understand why. He is trying to emulate Andy Warhol, but does not succeed. He takes art already created by other people and somehow reuses and sometimes unjustly into his own version of art.
The exhibit from Prince I chose was the “Marlboro Men.” These men were the cigarette ads that tried to show cigarettes not only being cool, but the rugged, handsome men in these ads were healthy cowboys. They are all within western America, with nature being the focal point. They are almost always with horses, showing these men as cowboys. The nature background could change from some water base, as in a lake or river, to the forest or open valley. The cowboy is supposed to be the “icon of American man-hood.” This is then overshadowed by the aspect as written in the description about the exhibit, “the images draw on another potent construction of this figure – the hyper-masculinized gay sex symbol.” The Marlboro Men ads were more well known before the 1980’s but in the 1980 decade when being gay did not have to be as hidden as it did in the years preceding.
These pictures are purposefully a picturesque scene. They are supposed to bring a positive quality out of us that we will then associate with cigarettes. This idea was the forced to be abandoned when the truth about cigarettes was revealed to the world. Even though Prince was quoted saying people will smoke cigarettes before and after these ads, and he does not think these ads sold any cigarettes, I would have to disagree. Using a much liked figure, someone the women wanted to envision themselves with, and someone the men aspired to be, the Marlboro Men brought around an increase in their sales.
Aesthetically, I admired these pictures, when you take them away from their ad cycle. The composition, lighting, scenery, and of course the men, makes for an amazing photo. The colors are vibrant, coming to life with each movement. The day is typically a beautiful sunny day with little to no dark clouds. The men are almost always with their rugged handsome charm, doing something which is considered ‘manly.’ The scenery would be appealing to almost everyone. The greenery of the land, the blueness and clearness of the water, the bright and brilliant sky would attract almost anyone to the ads, which would then be the point. They would associate the cigarettes with these men, whether intentionally or not, and remember them. Prince did not originate these photographs. He took the original photograph, and took out the ad structure of it. These photographs, as clear and precise as these photographs were, were not original work. Knowing that, highly takes away the experience for me. I did not realize at the time of my museum experience these weren’t originals. I understand the idea behind postmodernism, but this has taken that idea to the next level that I feel it should never be taken to.

Yale Art Museum

“The Forgotten, But Not Lost Artist”

Although most of the Yale Museum of Art was modern art, I was delighted to find work similar to that of Hendrik van Steenwyck the Younger. In fact, his painting depicting the interior of a church is what I aim to discuss, though I have misplaced the title of the piece! It was exceedingly difficult to find any information on Hendrik van Steenwyck, both the Elder or the Younger. However, I found they were both Dutch painters and concentrated on architectural interiors, specifically how torches and candlelight plays upon the walls. The Younger stressed a cooler tone throughout his work and lived from 1580 to 1649. He was the pupil of his father and although he has been referred to as “inferior” to his father’s work, I appreciate his perspective and talent very much. In that respect, I regard him as a more accomplished artist than his father since, throughout my investigations, I did not come across a single piece done by the Elder and anything visual was attributed to the Younger.
In the piece that the Yale Museum of Art I especially liked the emphasis and use of the arches and branched ceiling designs. I appreciated the fact that his painting of the interior of a church was just that. In other words, looking at so many religiously oriented works of art – you become accustomed to the excessive symbolism and it was refreshing to come across one that focuses more on the structure than the supposed function of the building. Granted, there is a scene of great religious significance in the slightly off-central room; however, the painting concentrates primarily on the architectural designs and lighting. The human images are dwarfed in comparison to the walls and vaulted ceilings, making the structure that much more impressive.
Another striking element of this painting is the extraordinary attention to detail. The ceiling, walls, picture-frames are adorned with golden accents and I could make out each individual tile on the floor. As the building continues in the background, no matter how dark those shadowed areas were, I could still discern the lines and shape of each arch. His use of light and shadow is astounding. The man in the foreground, on the left, holds a lantern by his leg, making bright circle of light on the floor around him – long shadows are cast in all directions. One feature of the painting that stands out in my mind is Steenwyck’s brushwork. I could not readily make out any brushstrokes; it’s amazing. The image looks like a snapshot, an actual photograph taken from a high vantage point – as if someone had removed a far wall from the church and allowed us to take a look inside like a gigantic dollhouse or movie set.
This is anything but a typical representation of a church or cathedral. The service is almost completely obscure and the shadowed areas of the painting attract most of the viewers’ attention. It’s inviting. Steenwyck’s interpretation makes a nonreligious person more comfortable because it is as if he’s depicting a scene, allowing everyone to partake in the experience. If you are so inclined, you can dwell on the lit room; however, if your faith or thoughts lie elsewhere, Steenwyck shows you a different kind of beauty than what is usually associated with religious settings. He depicts the magnificence and strength of the building. In that respect, it is more like a tribute to the structure and foundation of the architecture itself than addressing the fact that the scene really takes place in a church.
It is very disappointing that Hendrik van Steenwyck the Younger’s work is not more renowned. He commands the use of light and space, offering a different perspective on an old theme. He uses his passion for architecture to speak out to his audience. The people almost seem like an afterthought, to emphasize the remarkable structure they stand in.