"Day" at the Museum

A.)

Yves Tanguy, “Indefinite Divisibility”, 1942.

Oil on canvas. 101.6 x 88.9 cm (40 x 35 in)

This artwork made an impression on me because it reminded me of Salvador Dali’s, “Clocks Melting Clocks”. Dali’s work made a lasting impression on me in high school and from the moment I stepped in front of Yves’ work, I was reminded of it instantly. I don’t know if it’s the emptiness of the back round or the use of objects that are placed out of their norm, or the fact that the objects used in both are not ordinary regardless of where they’re placed. It’s complex and almost a combination of eeriness and science. – Very enjoyable.

      Storm Tharp, “Miss Cloud”, 2009.

      Ink, gouache, colored pencil, graphite, charcoal, and fabric dye on paper.

      42 X 58 inches

“Miss Cloud” was one of the first series of artwork I walked by that I found myself immediately walking backward to take a double look. Before reading the name of the artwork, I had considered this woman being a powerful figure. She’s wearing fur around her neck, she has an over the top hair style that woman of stature have been known for having, and without even considering her smile, she seemed very eloquent. Assuming her hair is the “cloud”, I went from thinking that it almost looks like there was an ink explosion on paper that the artist chose to work with and I wasn’t sure that I neither understood nor liked it. Then, when I went home it was one of the handful of artworks that I could recall clearly without looking back at the notes and photographs I had taken. Therefore, I know it left an impression on me.

      Karin Davie, “Dangerous Curves”, 2002.

      Oil on canvas. 84x108 inches

Modern art marvels me. As a child, I used to be obsessed with books using illustrations of curves, spirals, and repetitious designs that actually created images when you focused in on them close enough and slowly backed away from. This style amazes me. It almost appears to be computer generated and because it’s actually the use of oil paint, I’m very impressed.

B.)

       Georges Seurat, “Study for Le Chahut”, 1889.

Oil on canvas. 24x36inches

I just went through the book looking for the painting that reminded me of this one and it’s the same artist! Hahaha. I should be saying, “I can believe it”, because it’s a unique style but I’m a little shocked right now. The painting I’m referring to is, “A Sunday on La Grande Jatte.” Just as I’ve discussed in a previous assignment about how remarkable the detail is, I relived that feeling viewing this piece. The book was correct in saying that seeing paintings in person makes a world a difference. This painting also made me think of the play, “Wicked”, I’ve recently seen. Not because of the dancers obviously, but because of the orchestra located in the bottom left of the work. During the play I spent a great deal of time watching how the music all comes together and unfortunately the actors get most of the credit rather than the one man in particular that I watched play four different instruments one after another with absolutely no real break. This painting is a lot like that. From afar everything appears as one. It’s only when you look at it closer that you realize the time, detail and strategic placement of each colored dot to make it a masterpiece. I LOVE IT! 

Andre Derain, “The Trees”, 1906

Oil on canvas. 23 3/8x28 1/2 23

I felt an immediate connection with this artwork because it reminds me of the backyard of my home I grew up in. In the back of the house is a huge picture window that looks out at the backyard that’s filled with trees. The hedgerow was built up with trees and bushes that you could barely see through and between the house and hedgerow was a much more scattered array of trees that were so tall I could barely see where the branches started. The coloring even makes sense because as the sun would set it seeped through all the trees sending off the most beautiful set of golden tones that would fill the backyard almost as if there was water reflecting the beams of light against their bark. The only thing throwing it off is the mountain in the back. If it were replaced with an open cornfield it would be almost too familiar.

Jehan Georges Vibert, “The Marvelous Sauce”, 1890.

Oil on wood panel. 25 x 32 inches

I feel a connection to this piece simply because I grew up with an extremely Italian family and sauce was and still is a huge part of what’s on the dinner menu.

Every Sunday, as a family tradition, four o’clock means sauce at my parent’s house. Prior to actually dishing it out we all walk by with the wooden stirrer, tasting the sauce just as these two men are exhibiting. The only thing missing is my dad in the back round tampering with it by adding extra ingredients to my mother’s recipe.

C.)

Chaim Soutine, “Carcass of Beef”, 1925.

      Oil on canvas.  138 x 108cm

From four artworks away I spotted this piece and already found myself asking, “what the heck is that?” The title says it all; it’s a carcass of beef, but why? What was the artist trying to convey by choosing an animal carcass as their focus? The use of dark colors and heavy strokes suggests it not to be humorous but instead dark and depressing. The bottom almost looks like someone or something has started to eat it or at least pick at it. I would like to know more so that I could appreciate it rather than thinking it belongs to a butcher.

   

       Laurie Simmons, “Magnum Opus II (the Bye-Bye), 1991.

      Gelatin silver print, edition 1/5. h: 54 x w: 95 in / h: 137.2 x w: 241.3 cm

I’m reminded of the movie “Toy Story” when Andy’s disturbed neighbor takes his toys and attached them to body parts of his little sister’s barbies. Because it’s and animated and funny movie I quickly laughed but then I got to thinking more about what Laurie Simmons was trying to portray. Each object appears to have legs so my question would be why did she choose the objects she did to attach to the legs? Why are some of them walking while others are sitting? Is there a connection to technology because of the camera and the telescope? Or is there a connection to science? Are they walking toward a destiny or their maker? Does the reflection of them play a more important role than just simply capturing that they have a reflection? Does their reflection make them human?

     

James Rosenquist, “Nomad”, 1963.

      Oil on canvas, plastic, and wood. 7 ft. 6 in. x 11 ft. x 2 ft. 1 in.

The fact that the artist chose to use three-dimensional object along with his painting left me wanting to know more right away. Does it signify a billboard? The bag hanging off the top appears to have all the colors that combine to make light dripping down the sides. Is that used to show that all those colors can be used to create something brilliant such as this work? Why the use of such a random assortment of objects? Is there an actual photograph that lies directly below the microphone head? What does “oxy” eventually spell out? Oxygen? Then, if yes, are all the objects supposed to symbolize both positive and negative impacts on our atmosphere because there’s a cell phone, pasta, an open area with grass, possible a plastic bottle, and legs representing dancing which possibly is used to show extracurricular activities? – An excellent conversation piece.