For my birthday, my parents came into town to see me. So, I thought it would be perfect: we could take a family trip to the Museum of Modern Art since my dad loves doing that kind of stuff. Now, we all had different reactions to the whole experience. When driving up to the museum, the first thing you see is a giant copper-looking shapeless statue; it was just kind of a big cylinder statue. My first reaction was just to groan and roll my eyes. I’m obviously no modern art appreciator. Once we went inside and started walking around looking at the exhibits, I found myself liking few pieces. I felt distracted, and not really wanting to walk around inside when it was so beautiful outside. But, putting that aside, I did have some different reactions to the pieces.
A piece that really stood out to me was in the first room when you walk in called “Book with Wings,” by Anselm Kiefer. I read that there were two versions that he made, one with wings that were drooping and the other in a triumphant position. In the Museum of Modern Art they had the triumphant version, and what I got out of the piece was that books make you soar—they help expand your mind. However, once reading the information, it was ironic because the wings in the statue are made of lead, which is a very heavy metal that would never be able to fly. This part confused me. Right after I was about to give modern art a chance, they had to throw that in there; I really had no idea what to make of the piece after that.
The self-portrait pieces that stuck out to me were the ones of Andy Worhol and Francis Bacon. Worhol’s piece was more just of his face in a neon green color, which I found my eyes attracted to that more than most of the pieces in the museum. He looked kind of crazed in his picture, and I don’t know whether he meant for it to be that way, or he really did just look like that, but I kind of liked the piece. I normally always like Worhol, but all I have seen of his is his pop art collections, I had never seen something like this from him before. As for Bacon’s, his really just freaked me out. He was in a crouching position and it was a little blurred on his face; what it reminded me of was some type of horror movie. I really actually thought this would be the male version of the psychotic lady in “The Yellow Wallpaper”; I really don’t know why, but that is just what I picture her looking like in my mind.
Then I saw many pieces where my first reaction was, “I could do that”; these are the types of art I expect to be in a modern art museum. Light Cloud, Dark Cloud by Mark Rothko was one in particular that I thought I could definitely paint. All it is are three strips of paint colors on a plain background. Hans Hofmann’s To Miz-Pax Vobiscum reminded me of Tetris: another modern art piece I would expect to see. I don’t find these pieces inspirational, deep, or whatever else people think that modern art is. However, one of these types of pieces I really did like; I thought I could definitely see myself putting it in my house. It was Adolph Gottlieb’s, Apaquogue. It was simple on the top, with three pretty-colored circles, and then it looked like graffiti on the bottom. It kind of seemed like an oxymoron. It was peaceful and serene on the top, and then it was a bunch of black swipes of paint on the bottom.
A really random piece of art that we came across was Untitled (L.A.) by Felix Gonzalez-Torres. It was a bunch of green candies that were wrapped in cellophane tossed on the floor in a giant bunch. The random part was that you could not take pictures of this piece of art, yet you could take candy from it and eat it. I was so confused by it; I thought the curator was lying when he said to take a piece.As we went through the museum, I hate to admit it, but I did find more pieces that I enjoyed. I guess I really had this perception that all modern art had to be that random-shape/random-color type art. I liked Melissa Miller’s portrayal of Noah’s ark with her piece The Ark. My mom and I both really didn’t understand why it was classified as modern art, but I guess modern art is more than just shapes and colors. Some of the art pieces I liked that I would classify as modern art were Cities in Question (painted 1979) and Travel Agency (painted 1983). The first was just a bunch of colors that kind of blended together, but then there were certain big cities placed where they are in relation to a map and they all had their names with a question mark after. I thought that it was saying these big cities really can’t make a name for themselves, because their reputations have already been made by stereotypes. I mean I could be completely wrong, but that’s what I personally got out of it. The latter painting was again colors that blended nicely, but on it was written, “This city would have a travel agency, but this city doesn’t travel.” I just thought it was kind of funny and random.
Finally, my favorite piece in the whole museum (which I really would never have thought I would like something like this) was Hollywood (painted in 1984). It seemed to me that this painting was an irony. It was a very dark painting: only using black, browns, and greys really. Everyone always talks about Hollywood being so glamorous and amazing, but being from California, I have been to Hollywood a few times, and it is the furthest thing from amazing. It’s really a sketchy place. Hearing all these stereotypes just makes me laugh, because it really isn’t anything like they portray in movies. I feel like this painting really captured that.
Overall, the three of us weren't as amazed with these paintings as we are with other styles, but I found myself liking it more than I thought I would. I'm glad it was a mandatory assignment to visit the museum, because I never would have gone willingly. I think I have a tiny bit more of an appreciation for modern art, since I now know that it isn't just those Tetris-looking color block paintings. It actually has a lot more to it. Who would have known?
(I found it funny even their instructions were modern looking)