Comments on: Art in the Afternoon

By: dc

dc — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 05:55:19 +0000

No, I can only take so much museuming at once (about an hour and a half, to be precise), so the Robert Frank show and a quick stroll through the roof garden and the permanent collection was all I had the patience for.

By: m

Fri, 21 Aug 2009 05:01:36 +0000

Did you get to see the Avedon exhibit? I really liked that.

By: dc

dc — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 04:21:00 +0000

The closest I’ve come to visiting Houston was driving past it on I-10 during a freak snowstorm in 1996, on the way from Berkeley to NYC via Austin and New Orleans (could I be any more predictable?). I’m surprised I haven’t heard more (anything, in fact, as far as I remember) about the Menil, given the description of their holdings on the website (speaking of Cornell, it says they have a dozen of his boxes).

By: Carol Polk

Carol Polk — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 05:31:38 +0000

Should you ever have to go to Houston, your discomfort can be mitigated by a visit to the Rothko chapel on the grounds of the DeMenil museum. http://www.menil.org/index.php The chapel is entirely serene, a most interesting feeling given what one knows about Rothko the man.

Drop in on the Cy Twombly gallery while there and get a whole different feeling for his work(well, I did). Great fun, actually.

By: eric

eric — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:40:01 +0000

I’ve always wanted to look at Frank. I like that Sternfeld (?) book, “American Prospects”, and I remember Frank was supposed to be a precursor but then I never really looked him up. I like your shots–especially the self portrait. I miss museums.

Nice posts about Oakland recently, btw. I haven’t read them all yet, but I’m looking forward to–now that I’m back in museum-and-internet-world.

By: dc

dc — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 16:22:49 +0000

Ruth: Interesting question about how Frank’s foreignness affected his work. I’ve always thought that one feature of good art is that the artist is able to see the world afresh in one way or another—and also causes the viewer see the world afresh in one way or another (sometimes in minor ways, and sometimes in major ways that feel like revelations). It makes sense that Frank would pick up on some of the features of American life that most Americans might not notice since they are so familiar to people who grew up here. I also wonder how the subjects of some of the photographs felt about having some Swiss guy taking their picture.

I don’t remember ever seeing any Rothkos except variations on those color fields. I see from a quick glance at Wikipedia that he was supposedly deeply influenced by Nietzsche—poor guy!

By: ruth gutmann

ruth gutmann — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 13:26:34 +0000

I wonder whether you can appreciate Frank’s choice of what to photograph without factoring in his foreignness. That makes it all the more interesting that he influenced Americans who lacked that background. What Frank saw here must have been a strong contrast — on every level — from what he grew up with in Switzerland.

Your Ashbury quote reminded me of the recent NYT letter: In front of the Louvre: “Quick, where is the Mona Lisa, I am double-parked!”

Your choice of pictures and exhibts (?) those poodles!! (you really love even ugly dogs!) was funny. Have you ever seen Rothko paintings before those color fields?

By: dc

dc — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:02:34 +0000

Danielle: I liked the Frank show. It is mostly just a complete set of prints from The Americans, with a few dozen earlier works at the beginning, a bit of his later work at the end, and some selected works from photographers who had influenced Frank (Walker Evans, Bill Brandt et al.) and who Frank had influenced (Lee Friedlander, Garry Winogrand, et al.) Since I don’t think I’ve ever sat down and perused The Americans page by page, it was pretty new to me, but I can imagine that the show might seem like old hat to anyone who is more up on their history of photography than I am. I think I prefer some of the other photographers to Frank, but the show does make a convincing case (through the works, not through the text accompanying it, which I didn’t like much) that Frank caused (or at least marked) a turning point—his style looked like a major break from the more carefully framed and focused photographs of his predecessors, and you can really see Frank’s impact on the people who came after.

As for the poodles and baby…blah. I didn’t care for it at all, and the only reason I took a picture of it is that I thought the circular arrangement might make for a more interesting photo than some of the works I like more. I think my favorite stuff at SF MoMA are probably the Rothko shown above, and Warhol’s “National Velvet,” which is funny because I normally don’t like Warhol all that much. For whatever reason, “National Velvet” kind of gives me the chills. I think I even considered writing a post about it a few months ago. Maybe I will sometime…

By: Danielle

Danielle — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:38:51 +0000

I so love that museum, and those shiny Brancusis. The creepy baby/poodle dealio…well, I’ll have to judge for myself. How was the Frank show?

By: ng

ng — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:51:30 +0000

Very Nice!!!