Wes Rolley on tue 1 feb 05
My wife and I drove up to San Francisco today and went to the San=20
Francisco Museum of Modern Art... have to differentiate it from the real=20
MOMA. There is currently a retrospective exhibit of works by Roy=20
Lichtenstein that ends soon and we wanted to not miss it.=20
http://www.sfmoma.org/exhibitions/exhib_detail.asp?id=3D172
Besides, we had to make a produce drop for our daughter, fresh eggs,=20
Satsuma mandarins, Meyer lemon, oranges and the final bag of Fuji apples=20
out of our cold storage. Unfortunately, while her time was free when we=20
left home, by the time we got to her office she had 2 meetings. We=20
dumped the stuff, gave her a hug and were on our way.
I was struck by the fact that there is such a qualitative difference=20
between Lichtenstein's works and those of other whose work developed in=20
similar directions. I think in particular of Ed Ruscha=20
(http://www.beatmuseum.org/ruscha/ruschapaint.html) and to some extent=20
also of Jim Dine=20
(http://www.guggenheim.org/exhibitions/past_exhibitions/dine/dine_bottom.=
html)
I really want to be able to explain the reason why I feel that=20
Lichtenstein's work is excellent, strong and that Ruscha is not even=20
close to being on the same plane. There are some specific similarities=20
in the way that they use words in or as their art. Yet, Lichtenstein's=20
"ART" holds my attention while Ruscha's "FLASH" brings no flash of=20
recognition.
I came to the conclusion that after you strip away all of the=20
intellectual trappings of Pop Art references and images, Lichtenstein=20
just had a better sense of line, form, composition, elements of=20
aesthetic value that enhance whatever referential meaning may be in the=20
words.
While much of "Modern Art" trimmed away meaning, symbol, image, to leave=20
only a manipulated color field, Ruscha has taken away everything except=20
the word and what it might, or might not, symbolize. Lichtenstein was=20
able to handle both. His works are full of references, to Monet, to=20
Picasso, Matisse, even to him own works. Still they are uniquely his=20
own, whether only a Black and White tire, or a comic book image of a=20
kiss, he manages to call our attention to the thing referenced without=20
losing the elements of composition, form and line. Even a simplified=20
landscape covering the canvas from edge to edge with his characteristic=20
dot was still had the power to grab your attention.
In several of his large interior scenes he manages to manipulate a=20
complex set of ideas, symbols and references into works of great strength.
In his last works, a series of landscape paintings from 1997, (age 74)=20
that derive from the study to Chinese Landscapes, at the point where I=20
expected to see the continuance of his sense of composition distilled to=20
the point of being exquisite, I found that all of the elements were=20
there but that the ultimate lack of compositional integrity made these=20
works less satisfying.
I also want to take these thoughts back into the world of ceramic art.=20
I find it gratifying that there is a John Mason work in the 2nd Floor=20
exhibit of the permanent collection. It is a large cross form from 1964=20
and was probably very early in his development of such large scale=20
works. It comes close to being supurb but while a large work of an=20
important ceramic artist it does not match his work currently at the=20
Frank Lloyd Gallery in Los Angeles=20
http://www.franklloyd.com/dynamic/exhibit_artist.asp?ExhibitID=3D43&Exhib=
it=3DCurrent
It causes me to wonder even more about one artist whose works I have=20
only seen in photographs, Adrian Saxe.=20
http://www.franklloyd.com/dynamic/artist.asp?ArtistID=3D25
http://www.garthclark.com/Artists/AdrianSaxe/artistbio_images.htm
I read what is written about Saxe. The information on Saxe at from the=20
Frank Lloyd gallery site proclaims that, "Having pressed the question of=20
the utility of his own art in a post-industrial world, his work engages=20
us in a dialogue about our own place in a radically shifting cultural=20
universe. The result is that Saxe has become the most significant=20
ceramic artist of his generation.=94
When I try to deconstruct this post modernist verbiage, I don't get=20
the meaning. It is as if there is some vast insider joke that I am=20
missing. What I do see is extraordinary technical virtuosity and an=20
amalgam of diconnected images that I wish I had evaluated at the=20
gallery, because I certainly do not see in this specific set of=20
photographs anything that deserves such high praise. To have written so=20
critically without having actually been to the gallery is not fair to=20
Mr. Saxe. Still, untill the next time I am in Los Angeles, this is all=20
I have, and it is all that most will ever have. Still I wonder what=20
these might be had they been given composition, form and line that I=20
found was the difference between Lichtenstein and Ruscha.
I really look forward to hearing from Forrest Snyder after the=20
International Festival of PostModern Ceramics.
| |
|
