The good word about the Quilts of Gee’s Bend show was the bait that made me desire to make a trip to the De Young Museum in San Francisco. I had never been to the old De Young, so I have no way of comparing the space, or the programs to the new one. I really had no idea what to expect, other than an impressive building and a quilt show, before I visited.
The Museum
We went to the De Young on a Saturday, which although not the best day for museum viewing, is the best day to get an idea of how a museum really functions. It was crowded, but not so much that you felt rushed, or put on by other people.
The exterior of the building is stunning. I used to work with copper a lot in college, and it’s one of my favourite metals. You can do a lot with it, and it will do a lot of amazing things if left on its own. I’m looking forward to seeing what the building looks like as various environmental forces begin to work on it. It looks just right in the park - they’ve got an great big safety pin by Claes Oldenburg and an Andy Goldsworthy - safe, but solid choices for an outdoor sculpture collection.
Inside is another matter. I’ve been going to a lot of museums lately, and the interior space of the building bothers me to no end. The building essentially consists of three linked rectangular blocks, each three stories in length. I don’t know why, but the sterility of the interior design makes me feel as if I’m at the mall - each room another, all too similar store that I must investigate.
The Collection
The permanent collection is huge, and although there are some tremendous pieces, it seems assembled to provide the broadest possible perspective on art history. It’s really the kind of museum where you might be advised to experience through regular, short visits. All of the rooms are ogranised in a pretty common style - rooms full of loosely associated stuff - trompe loeil, stuff related to food, furniture, various geographic regions, etc… I understand that this is the most neutral way to present art to the public and it certainly does allow the viewer to compare similar or related work, but I really miss the targeted curatorial intent that is seen in special exhibitions or gallery shows. Does a museum need to own works by an incredibly broad selection of artists, or can it succeed through more focused attention? I’m not questioning the De Young specifically here, it’s museums in general that I seem to feel lack focus in their collections.
The full Flickr set of my visit is viewable here, but I’d like to pay special attention to a few of the objects in the collection that I have images of.
Above: Wayne Thiebaud, Rivers and Farms
I can’t say enough what a craftsman Thiebaud is. Anyone who’s spent a five minutes with an art history text or even a magazine has seen examples of his work. As much as I’ve loved his cakes and the gumball machines (they have one at the De Young, but it didn’t get photographed - my mistake), I like his landscapes more. While they lack the “easy to read” symbology of the food related paintings, I’m just drawn in by the colours and the brushwork in a way that I’m not with almost any other artist.
Above: Mel Ramos, Superman
Mel Ramos was the first non-comic artist I can think of to do real justice to comics (although museums that own his or other comic derived work ever reference the original comic artists who’s work is almost always blatantly copied, in this case DC artist Curt Swan - this is a major error and symobises a failure of museums to adequately present the context or history of works, especially pre-contemporary ones, to the casual viewer).
Above: Cornelia Parker, Anti-Mass
This is a tremendously moving piece. The composition suggests the chaos of an explosion, or more specifically a cubical volume of space seperated from the total chaos of an explosion. In this work I see both the fury of agressor and victim, as if this cube represents a quantified unit of human suffering. It’s both well installed and lit, which is difficult for a piece like this. There’s a colour and surface quality that only comes across in person - the charcoal appearance of the burnt wood is what makes the piece, the photo above doesn’t do it proper justice. The label has a different take on the work than I get from it, describing it as reflective in nature, but knowing the history of the materials, I have trouble understanding it in that way.
Above: Mantlepiece (sorry, can’t read the rest of label)
This is the kind of object I want to see more of in museums. I’m passionate about craft and use objects, and pieces like this can go a long way to contexualise more common museum objects, like paintings and scuptures. This 19th century piece, originally installed in lodge, says a tremendous amount about masculine culture and the asethetics of priviledge at the time. The center of the piece, which features a boar being devoured by hunting dogs speaks volumes.
Above: Claes Oldenburg & Coosje van Bruggen, Safety Pin
I am a sucker for huge stuff. I like “world’s biggest” anything kind of stuff. And I really like Claes Oldenburg & Coosje van Bruggen’s work. As far as I’m concerned every one of their collaborations has been a success. But I always have to ask the question - I bet you could pick up an equally well designed giant anything for less by paying local fabricators and not bothering with the expensive fine artists. What’s the difference between a giant safety pin made by famous artists and a giant fork made by comission by unnamed fabrications? What’s the difference in labor costs between comissioning a pair of super famous international artists and hiring an engineer?
I’d really like to see a vs. battle in which Oldenburg and Bruggen are put against a series of local architects. Possibly carried out as a reality show. It would be way cooler than Artstar, as it would be both a ladder competition and it would have tool/construction junkie/gearhead appeal. Maybe then we could settle this particular art historical puzzle, and in an arena that could not be more representative of our society.
Quilts of Gee’s Bend
I really enjoyed the work in the Gee’s Bend show (no photos allowed, sorry). I’ve spent the past decade sewing a number of elaborate patchwork garments - this was right up my alley. I have some conflicting thoughts on the museum display of “use objects” and the art market that always surrounds folk art of the minute. The realisation that the quiltmakers of Gee’s Bend now serve a market of wealthy patrons, who will likely never huddle for warmth under a thin blanket again in their lives, de-contextualises and in some way lessens the importance of their work. On the other hand, I’m sure that the quiltmakers live far more comfortable and stable lives now that their work finds its way to deeper pockets.
The simple fact that these quilts were originally made for the purpose of maximising sparse resources and providing warmth to those who might otherwise be cold is at the core of their aesthetic and value as objects. The fact that the show has its own mini museum store located right at the entrance (taking the mall analogy further - this reminds me of the carts and kiosks that have become standard in malls today), where one can buy any number of Gee’s Bend logo merchandise, only makes things worse. This to me represents the Disneylandification of museum space, with middle class familes buying junk replaced by upper class individuals buying junk.
The space and atmosphere made it impossible to really see the work. I’m not sure if the gallery they used is their “special exhibitions only” gallery, but the space was like a hallway - the building’s design lends itself to rectangular, hallwayish spaces. Quilts are large work, and to be seen properly, they need lots of light and lots of space, and they had neither, especially given the crowd buildup in the gallery. I’m sure that the situation might have been a little less pressured had I visited on a weekday, but the museum needs to be able to provide a quality experience every day, and the weekend factor is no excuse.
I’ll start this off by saying that I’m not particularily sympathetic to indentity politics, and Latino identity politics in particular don’t go over well with me. Living in Southern California, I’ve been blessed with a long term immersion in Latino heritage, but many political elements of the Latino community really turn me off. In fact I’m ashamed as an Angeleno by much of the Latino politcal community. When it comes to art that’s organised around identiy politics, there’s great work out there, but I find much if it relies on amplifications of real and perceived persecution and racism that in the end only serves to further divide people. Rather than engage in a public dialog, work of this nature relies so heavily on sterotype that the artists paint themselves and their work into rather unimaginative corners.
Chicano is a travelling exhibition consisting of three components, first Chicano Visions: American Painters on the Verge, which consists of selections from the Cheech Marin collection, possibly the best collection of contemporary American Latino art in existence, Chicano Now: American Expressions, which is a “5,000 sq. foot interactive exhibit” and Chicano Encounters: Local Places and Global Communities, which is being organised by each museum on the tour as a localised compliment to the other two elements.
Like the Gee’s Bend show, there is a sales kiosk when you come to the end of the exhitibition. First, I don’t like it that exhibitions have become analogous to theme park rides (in that they have a structured narrative with a beginning and ending), and second, I think we’ve gone too far when it comes to the merchandising of major art exhibitions. I like musuem stores (they’re great places for upper class yuppies to do all their Christmas shopping or to buy all the “right” coffee table books), but I don’t want to feel like I’m being sold T-shirts at high volume after coming off of Space Mountain.
Chicano Visions - I got to spend a fair amount of time with the catalog when I was working on the Patssi Valdez solo show that we had last year at Angels Gate, as her work is prominently featured on the cover and we had a reference copy on hand. There are pieces in this show that I really like, it was great to see them beyond the catalog, and they didn’t disappoint - but I find it sad that so much of the work fails to escape the subject matter and colour scheme that has become the hallmark of Latino art. I know too many Latino artists who’s work stretches far beyond the boundaries of Cheech’s collection, and I feel that the work becomes akin to the Gee’s Bend Quilts in that it serves the consumer needs of a moneyed class who’s vision of Latino culture is limited to sterotype.
That being said, I really enjoyed being able to see George Yepes, Gaspar Enriquez and Melisio Casas work. Although “traditionally Latino” in terms of subject matter and composition, their work is really awesome. I don’t want to come across as knocking the other artists in the exhibition - there’s no work that’s sloppy or weak. I just think that the composition of the collection and the exhibition presents the Latino experience as a sadly limited one.
Chicano Now - I got beef with this one. Although there’s a fun video take off on Neil Diamond’s Coming to America by the Brown Men, much of this exhibit seems to be a lot of “look at all of the things Chicanos can do!” They’re just like regular people! Really! I find this kind of material offensive and racist when I look at it. It’s not important that so and so was the first Latino astronaut - it’s important that no one gives a damn that the astronaut is Latino. I certainly don’t. I like to think that our society has moved past that point - even if we haven’t, making an icon out of every minority group (with white folks the minority in many places in the U.S. are we going to start seeing “first white person to….”?) continues the colonial era behaivor of treating other races like children.
Chicano Encounters - This was the best part of this exhibit. Much of the work consists of prints created through the Mission Cultural Center for Latino Arts in San Francisco. A lot of the work relates directly to both local and national political issues, and a lot of it consisted of prints. This was the most relevant and significant part of the show, and it outshone the “travelling mega-exhibition” that it accompanied. Kudos to the De Young for highlighting some really good work. I wished I had been able to take pictures in this area, but I couldn’t.
