5 thoughts on “Notes on Visiting the L.A. County Museum of Art (LACMA)”

1. General Comments

   • LACMA’s third floor features 20th century art, curating the art to show the evolution of styles and techniques during the century. My sense is that artists move from realistic images to greater abstraction. Impressionism, with its “pixelated” approach, seems like an intermediate step, one that could have sparked the idea for something like cubism. But the evolution may not be so linear. For example, I’m not sure if one can make a direct connection between Impression and Cubism to Surrealism or Abstract Expressionism.
   • Question: What was the impetus behind dramatic changes in styles–i.e., moving away from realistic art? Artist seem to value new styles. If that’s accurate, why is that? Personally, new innovations in art excite me, but is newness (stylistically) inherently valuable? Maybe it became more valuable with the advent of photography, since cameras could reproduce realistic images , painters (et Al.). In this way, photography pushed other visual artists to find news of doing things. Once this started, the process for looking for new styles began. Has that process slowed or even ended?

   Reply

2. 6_v211132013 (2015) by Petra Cortright

   LACMA had an installation on video art. Of the art presented, two really struck me–an Andy Warhol piece (made on old computers) and Petra Cortright’s V 21132013, which was a video painting. At first, I thought it was a painting on a video screen, but by accident I discovered that the painting actually paints and erases itself in a loop (about 7-10 minutes I think).

   

   (Note: I believe I took the photo above before I realized that the painting changed over time. I don’t think this is supposed to be the “completed” painting.)

   Here are some notes I jotted down:

   The piece makes me think of an even more abstracted version of Monet’s water lillies–with the blues recalling the pond, the greens on the bottom looking like lily pads, while the organe/red/yellows at the top evoke the sun and sunset.

   I also thought of abstracted Hieronymous Bosch painting–only featuring abstracted nature in chaos.

   Besides these things, I just like the aesthetic qualities of the piece. By the way, I’ve never heard of Cortright and this is the first time I’ve seen her art.

   Here are some other “moments” of the painting–moments when the painting is “erasing” or breaking down:

   
   
   
   

   Interestingly, I do think one can identify the “completed” painting–or at least identifying a range where the painting is likely completed. Then again, maybe Cortright would disagree with this. Maybe the entire duration is the completed work–that there is no beginning or ending.

   Reply

3. (More on Serra’s Band)

   Here’s a photo that shows how the metal looks like wood:

   

   This next photo shows not only the wood-ish texture/look, but also shows the “seam,” connecting two large metal sheets, showing the way Serra put together the piece. According to the write-up, if placing these sheets have to be perfect. Errors of just a few millimeters could prevent the piece from standing.

   

   Reply

4. Hardedge Line Painting (1963) Lorser Feitelson

   

   I’m not sure why I like this painting.

   Desert Moon (1955) Lee Krasner

   

   Untitled (1971 by Karen Carson

   

   In addition to the aesthetics, I liked the concept of this one. Black cloth, with sections held together by zippers, is pinned to a white wall. My understanding is that viewers could choose to unzip specific sections changing the piece. This wasn’t allowed at the museum, so I assume Carson choose this particular iteration.

   Actual Size (1962) by Ed Ruscha

   

   This one made me laugh. There is a can of spam–in its actual size–in the lower section. It seems to be shooting across the canvas like a comet. In the “comet tail,” the words “actual size” are written.

   The Jewel (1959) by Jay DeFeo

   

   

   

   I like the “caked” paint, giving this a bad relief quality and a lot of texture. The first picture really doesn’t do the painting justice.

   Reply

5. Ways my Appreciation and Enjoyment of Art Increased

   Interviewer: You need a critical eye for pictures, for your own as well.
   Gerhard Richter: Yes, but I have a lot to compare with…Theoretically, if there were no decline, your storehouse of treasures up here (points to his head) would just keep growing. That’s what I use for comparison.

   from the film, Gerhard Richter Painting

   This passage made reminded of two important points I wanted to make about appreciating art that I realized during visits to museums in L.A. and NYC.

   1. Richter mentions that he has a storehouse of (aesthetic) treasures which allow him to compare and evaluate art, both his and others. I agree, but I think one critical aspect of this involves building up these treasures until one hits a critical tipping point, where one really develops a stronger command of the language of art. Think of the 10,000 hours rule, where this time is needed for mastery in any field. Except here when I speak of the “language of art,” I’m referring to the organization of line, color, form within a frame. When these elements happen to be organized in a way that evokes an aesthetic effect, that’s good visual art. To really sense this, I do think one needs to see enough art, or even well-designed objects or beautiful things in nature (hopefully, in an intentional way), which is building a storehouse of treasure mentioned earlier. I feel like I’ve hit one of these tipping points.
   2. In my 20s, when I would look at art, I would look for some meaning. If the art looked good, that wasn’t sufficient. I thought art also had to convey some ideas or message. (I felt the same about poetry and instrumental music.) But over time, I just began to focus on the form–specifically the effect the form had on me–becoming less concerned or even indifferent to to the content or meaning. Does the art look really good? Is the sound of a poem pleasing by itself, independent of whether I understand it or not? I found I could enjoy both without “getting the meaning.” And maybe this process is what I mean by learning the language of art.

   Going back to Richter’s comment. Bad or failed art is an equally critical part of this storehouse. The failures help one better understand and appreciate the successes. So from seeing and experiences many, many different works of art, at some point, one begins to develop a keener sense of what looks good.

   Here I want to point something I heard from another artist (whose name escapes me now). When asked how a person develops better taste, he mentioned going to the swap meet and buying a vase that looked good, and taking it home to live with for a while. After a certain point, you may not think it looks so good, or you may. Then go out and get another.

   My takeaway: Really look at something you like (which is what having the vase at home allows you to do). And then keep having this experience over and over again with different objects or works of art. This process with hone your sense of what is beautiful or cool. What may seem beautiful or cool initially may not after a while. And soon you’ll know much quicker if something is not beautiful or cool, at least according to your experience and taste.

   A critical point here is that experience of good looking objects is essential to develop an appreciation for art or good design, which is another way of talking about taste. (This applies to music, poetry, movies, dance, etc.). Also critical is intention and time–that is, you concentrate to some extent while looking at the art, and give it some time, versus a superficial skimming.

   Reply