Find an art review in the New York Times and respond to the reviewer's tone, intentions, and "grade" for the art she is reviewing. After looking up the work or artist for yourself, do you agree with the reviewer? Why or why not?
Due Thursday September 1st by 12 noon.
I read the review on Harum Farocki a German-Czechoslovakian artist who did a video installation entitled “Serious Games I- IV (NYT Friday, Aug, 26). In this particular review the reviewer has positive comments towards the work but written his praise in a more neutral tone rather than a persuasive and overly enthusiastic tone. I feel that the review serves more as an introduction of an artist rather than a review since there is hardly any criticism in the article. The reviewer state that the work definitely serves if function as a reminder for the viewer to think more about how human life is being control by machine and technology. One of the critical question mentioned in the review is “do we control our machines or do they control us? If technology is in charge, what does it want?” I definitely agree with the reviewer and I think that it is very smart of the artist to use video footage and video game simulations to deliver us the content of the work because we grew accustom to believe in everything the media is portraying to us and his video footage is actually full of deception. The action in the video looks real but everything is actually a simulation or a set up (i.e. footage showing soldier being trained in the battlefield from a war video game and another footage showing soldiers in an Iraqi town that is actually set up in California).
ReplyDeleteFor this blog post , I decided to look at Ken Johnson’s review of Farocki: Images of War (at a Distance)” at the Museum of Modern Art. Johnson’s review implied that he enjoyed the exhibit, or as he referred to it as the fascinating subject matter of “Serious Games I-IV.” Johnson’s tone was instructive and supportive, Johnson even stated that Harun Farocki’s Film and video work is almost too interesting to be art; explaining that his exhibit deals with video-game technology used to train soldiers in practices of high-tech modern warfare. His review concluded with a statement concerning the way we live in a world of scary, reality-determining technologies, adding that Mr. Farocki asks an increasingly urgent question: do we control our machines or do they control us? If technology is in charge, what does it want? When I went to look up the work myself, I have to agree with Johnson’s view of Farocki’s work, I have become very familiar with the methods of war training due to my boyfriends obsession with both CNN and video games. I feel that this exhibition successfully captured the methods in which soldiers train, and support Johnson’s admiration in his review.
ReplyDeleteI looked at a review of a new exhibition in Portland of a collection of John Marin’s work. The review was called “Testing the Waters of Abstraction” by Ken Johnson. The overall aim of the review is to discuss the differences from the 1940’s and 50’s perception to the perception today of his work. To Marin’s contemporaries he seemed revolutionary but to a viewer today his work seems more cautious as he did not quite fully embrace the abstract style. Johnson begins the discussion looking at a “typical” viewer’s perspective recognizing that his work is often discarded as less valuable compared to pieces by other artists. He recognizes these commonly stated flaws for an entire introductory paragraph so that those who have previous knowledge of his work might be intrigued to read on. However, the negative tone might alienate those who have not heard of Marin before and prevent them from continuing to read. The following paragraph is a stark contrast because Johnson lists famous and influential people in the art world that considered his work magnificent. By recognizing both the pros and cons of Marin’s work, Johnson is suggesting that his writing will attempt to present a somewhat unbiased critique of the work. The tone of the review flips between positive and negative as he grapples with his slight disappointment with the exhibition. Even though he is obviously not impressed by the work he tries his best to convince the viewer of its merit within the history of art. Looking at the work myself, I agree that Marin’s work is a confusing jumble of styles without a clear direction. However, sometimes I think the combination of styles are beautiful and some specific works such as “Brooklyn Bridge” could still be considered relevant today.
ReplyDeleteI randomly decided to read the article "Giving Jesus a New Face" by Karen Rosenberg. In this article Rosenberg discusses the finding of a 'new' Rembrandt painting, in which Jesus's face was painted "from life". Assuredly Rosenberg states that Rembrant probably got an actual Jewish shepherd boy as a reference guide. In the article, the sentence "Jesus was, of course, Jewish." And yeah, I suppose he was. I never really thought about it since so few times do artists of the renaissance depict Jesus through his Jewish heritage; often Jesus would be depicted as a white man rather than a Jew. Rosenberg seems to go about this topic really well, though I noticed a little "slow down" right around the middle; and as such could have been a bit more concice, but I don't fault her for it. Still, I love how I noticed something religious in the art section!
ReplyDeleteI just found it interesting how big of a deal she was making about the depiction of Jesus, but I suppose it kind of is a big deal. I think these pieces by Rembrandt are truly interesting in that they were the only pieces of a biblical figure that attempt to be 100% accurate (or at least as accurate as one can be.).
The art review that I picked from the New York Times is one from the Art Section from this past Friday, where Edward Rothstein reviews the Martin Luther King Jr. National Memorial, created by the Chinese sculptor Lei Yixin. Throughout the article, Rothstein possesses a rather scoffing air, his tone being one of polite head shaking. He points out that all monuments have a “kitsch” element to them that is hard to escape since there is “a built-in grandiosity that exaggerated the physical and spiritual statures of [the monument’s] human subjects.” That’s the point of them, essentially. However, Rothstein presents the opinion that Yixin takes this element to a whole new level with the Dr. King memorial. He claims the size is too large, the compositional choices bizarre and the surrounding elements of the memorial are poorly executed. Overall, Rothstein seems to be expressing that the memorial doe not capture the subject, Martin Luther King Jr., in the right light, that the artist has “misread” him. Dr. King appears authoritative and cold whereas he should have been someone who the viewer could “commune with.” In the review, Rothstein also provides background information such as the fact that originally the memorial was to have water running down it’s back, alluding to one of Dr. King’s famous quotes. The idea was unfortunately abandoned, to the determent of the statue, Rothstein states. I looked up some more work done by Lei Yixin and couldn’t find all that much apart from the Dr. King memorial (because it’s such big news right now, I guess). However, the few pieces I could find seemed very similar to this memorial. I personally think that Edward Rothstein made some very insightful points and I’m glad that I read the article.
ReplyDeleteRobin Finn wrote an article about a graffiti site in New York that is about to be demolished. His choice of words shows his regret in the fact that the building must be torn down. It is apparent he is in favor that it remain as is. I definitely would have to agree that it is sad to see all the years of graffiti and layers of artists just thrown away; however, part of the beauty of graffiti is the impermanence of it. How for a fleeting moment it exists and ranges in reactions from people. Anything from sheer awe to udder furiousness can be observed by the same piece. I will however say that the graffiti I observed on this 5Pointz building in Long Island is rather novice. It is all very literal and seen before. For example, the man’s nickname is “joka” so he draws a picture of the joker from Batman. When compared to the controversial ideas and site specifications of someone like Banksy, it is very hard to advocate that an entire run down building remain solely for these individuals. Therefore in the end, as much as I am an advocate of expression, it is more prudent and understandable that the building does get torn down and restructured.
ReplyDeleteI chose to read the review entitled “Chicano Pioneers” by Randy Kennedy. Reading the review it is clear that Kennedy is very supportive of Asco, a 1970-80’s Mexican performance art group reuniting for a retrospective at the Los Angeles County Museum. Kennedy compares the group to the Dadaist of the early 20th century, noting that Tristan Tzara would have approved. Throughout the article Kennedy praises the group for their “guerrilla escapades”, as he seems to feel that they made a huge impact on the way Latino art is now being perceived.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this critic’s review of the Asco retrospective, I was swayed to believe that they really were incredible innovators, especially since this is really my first exposure to Latino art of really any kind. Once I began to look up the groups work I still felt the same way. Since most of the work is performance art, I could really only find stills of what had happened and read about the different antics that were going on. The group seemed to really call attention to the events of that era, and make people question what was happening, weather you were of their nationality or not. I agree with the critic, Tzara would approve.
I chose a review of Alexander McQueen’s work written by Holland Cotter. Cotter writes about an exhibition of McQueen’s work at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The reviewer thoroughly enjoys McQueen’s work as well as the arena in which it was displayed. Cotter describes McQueen’s work as “ethereal and gross, graceful and utterly manipulative, and poised on a line where fashion turns into something else” (Cotter). One can tell Cotter appreciates the artwork of McQueen when he talks about “arresting delicacies”,for example, beadwork that is so fine it is as “soft as moss”. After discussing the appealing aesthetics of McQueen’s work, Cotter talks about the meaning behind the work and about fashion as a genre. Highland Rape is a collection of McQueen’s that refers to England’s pillaging of Scotland. Cotter also discusses McQueen’s intention to empower women. He states that it often seems like McQueen is tormenting them instead of empowering them. I agree with most aspects of Cotter’s review. Having visited the exhibit myself, I can say that the work is truly inspiring and captivating. I share Cotters enjoyment in McQueen’s fashion. It really struck me when Cotter talked about McQueen’s fashion “turning into something else”. When looking at McQueen’s work sometimes you forget that you are actually looking at a piece of clothing. I do not entirely agree with Cotter’s statement that McQueen’s work gives the impression that women are being tormented. I always thought of the viewer being challenged and even tormented rather than the woman wearing the clothing. Some models wearing McQueen’s clothing look peaceful and graceful and definitely are empowered women, but the women in pieces that are a bit darker I feel are meant to torment and challenge the viewer rather than being tormented themselves. I think this because they are wearing powerful pieces of art and a woman wearing such a piece does not seem weak to me. Overall I agree with the review of McQueen’s work.
ReplyDeleteI read Roberta Smith's review for the show, "If You Lived Here, You'd Be Home Right Now". Her review was rather critical of the exhibit, and she seemed particularly displeased with the curators. She seemed to think the show was put together clumsily, with the intent of solely getting money from people wanting to see popular art. Smith writes that the show "circles uneasily, sometimes malevolently, around the idea of collecting, displaying, living with and looking at art and related objects". There is no unifying theme or conceptual basis, and there is no strive for a deeper meaning. Instead, there is only the concern with the ownership of art, of displaying the works like trophies. She did, however, seem to find some merit in a few of the rooms which contained art related to body image and desperation.
ReplyDeleteThe show, from what I could find on the works, does seem all over the place and not very well organized as a whole. Some of the works I didn't find particular great, but that's more of a subjective complaint. There is a picture in the article of the organization of one of the rooms, and it does feel very awkward and uncomfortable. I can see where smith is coming from, when she criticized the organization of the show, and I agree with her.
I read the review of "If You Lived Here, You'd Be Home by Now" exhibit in the Hessel Museum of Art. The reviewer was Roberta Smith. She starts the review of with this statement, "Some exhibitions are almost too smart for their own good." So from moment one I knew she hadn't enjoyed whatever exhibit I was about to read about. Needless to say I was right in my assumption. Smith proceeds in ripping apart the museum using BIG WORDS to show how smart she is. She describes galleries in a way that does not set up a clear visual, which frankly just perpetuates her view that the exhibition was disorganized. I think that is 100 percent okay to rip apart an exhibit, but I also think this should be done with more tact and maturity. My biggest issue with the review was the lack of visuals. There was one picture. yes I know it is a newspaper and I am sure there are a million and one limitations on the pictures they can use, but this is an online review. I would at least like to see what you are describing for myself as I read your opinion. Now i tried finding more pictures of the exhibit or at least the works from the exhibit, but the Museum website was a dead end and google image just really isn't reliable. Due to my lack of image finding, I can't really say whether or not I agree with the critic of the exhibit (though what was described sounded like it could be potentially interesting), but I can say that I don't like the style or tone she criticized the exhibit with. I believe that critics should be constructive not destructive. Art won't grow if we just say we don't like this or that. We have to A. say why and B. there has got to be SOMETHING you like (however small it is). At the end of the review I felt assaulted by the language and was very turned off to reading any more reviews, but I did want to see the exhibit for myself.
ReplyDeleteI chose to read “Populating the Landscape With Idealism” by Holland Cotter, which discusses an exhibition of the work of Camille Pissarro in Williamstown, Massachusetts. Cotter begins his review with a fascinating literary device; he imagines walking into a meeting of French Impressionist painters and discusses how he is received by each of them. Cezanne and Monet glance critically at him, but Pissarro warmly welcomes him to the salon. This opening scene makes you feel as though Pissarro has personally invited you to review his work, an excellent opener to the rest of the article. Cotter then relates this warm scene to the “embracing feel” of the exhibition itself, which truly gives the reader a sense of being present in the museum with the critic. His article then meanders into the history of Pissarro’s work and his early life, which I find to be a bit rambling and alienating after such a warm introduction. However, he finds his way back to the crux of the article and his main point, the warm and welcoming nature of Pissarro’s work. Cotter discusses the artist’s idealized landscapes, populated with members of Pissarso’s family. The exhibition then takes a dark turn, including portraits of Pissarro’s sickened daughter as well as his darker, more socially critical works. This change in the attitude of both the painter and the author gives the reader a sense of walking through the gallery and seeing firsthand the progression of the artist’s work. Overall, I found this article to be emotionally evocative and clear, giving the reader a true sense of being present at the exhibition. While I found some of the history to be a little too long and alienating for some readers, the overall narrative of the critique is largely successful.
ReplyDeleteI read a review called "In Brightest Africa" by Holland Cotter. The reviewer was more reviewing the curator of a museum rather than the art itself because the art is from thousands of years ago in Africa. The work itself is beautiful and the way the reviewer describes the exhibit it sounds very well put together. Cotter says that putting the art in a chronological order "argues against the notion, old and tenacious, that African art is historically mysterious, developmentally static and has no provable past." I would agree with this but I like this effect. I also always enjoy having as much background information of the artwork I look at so I like that the curator did this. I enjoyed that Cotter had a lighthearted tone. This was probably because Cotter liked the exhibit and I am interested to read other reviews by Cotter and see what the tone would be if he disliked the work.
ReplyDeleteReading this art review in the NYT of Jim Hodge's work in the Gladstone gallery, I thought that the reviewer had a very sarcastic tone in his voice and tone. The reviewer specifically mentions that "Quality takes a nose dive at Gladstone" and ironically states that "basically you watch and wait for things to happen." I found his language very harsh and I honestly did not know that reviewers go so hard at artists. I believe that the reviewer gave a pretty bad grade to the artist and the gallery itself for exhibiting such work. From my point of view and after looking at the pieces in the exhibition, I believe that the artist has created some interesting forms with the Rock like pieces, but besides that I also do not see the meaning and how this art has to do with the topics that critic mentions of the homoeroticized male body. However, I can see the other part where she says that he also plays with the artificial and the natural in some of the works exhibited as he has taken natural forms but has changed them into artificial objects.
ReplyDeleteThe art review I read from the New York Times was an article about this massive Egyptian sculpture that had been relocated from Germany to the Metropolitan. Since the pieces are so ancient, the reviewer had a tone of wonder and did far less critiquing I feel than if there were an emerging artist. I chose to read this article, even though it does not review a contemporary work of art, because I felt as if the tone of the reviewer was everything that I value in such an article; I don’t think a review should be a negative outlet where artists are torn down or belittled, but rather that a review should instill a sense of wonder. It’s important to try and incorporate the public or everyday person into the magic of the art world, not to try to persuade them to feel one way or the other about a piece. I would give this reviewer an “A+” overall.
ReplyDelete