Friday, June 10, 2005

Just for Mac

Given that he chose Warhol as the "most overrated artist," I figured Macallan would probably not want to rush out and see the new super-sized retrospect of Andy Warhol's work that Dia:Beacon is exhibiting to celebrate their second anniversary, so I thought I'd bring a bit of it to him.

Holland Cotter has truly outdone himself with a brilliant review of the exhibition in The New York Times in which he compares Warhol to Rubens. Here's a snippet:

Rubens believed that he lived in a diminished and degenerate age, "decay'd and corrupted" by a succession of "vices and accidents" in his words. He hated it, and constantly looked to an ancient past for a consoling model of virtue. Warhol, who went to Mass every Sunday, was similarly aware that the world was weak and corrupt, but he loved it, because it was there, and he was in it. Corruption, to him, made an endlessly fascinating study. For weakness, he had a soft heart. His Golden Age was his childhood, which he doggedly tried to recreate. In short, he saw decay where Rubens saw decay, but he also saw beauty. Who, in the end, had the truer eye?
With a Washington Monument wallpaper grounding all the 2-d works in the show, Dia is exhibiting Warhol's paintings in the way he apparently wanted them to be seen.

I have a problem with paintings that require installation to be seen at their "best" then being sold without the wallpaper (or whatever), so in general the practice rubs me the wrong way, but that's just the purist in me, I suppose. I'm sure Warhol would have argued that there's a reality to the market vs. exhibition I should just accept. Of course, I'm also sure he'd have argued that collectors should paper their homes with his wallpaper too. Here's one more image from the exhibition:


Anonymous crionna said...

I'd probbly paper at least the one wall on which the Warhol was hung...if it didn't look so much like poorly drawn tookuses.

6/10/2005 12:03:00 PM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

if it didn't look so much like poorly drawn tookuses.


Not just Cotter points out, Warhol most definitely chose the Washington Monument for the similarity it bears to another body part.

6/10/2005 12:08:00 PM  
Anonymous fafnir said...

Holy crap! You have your own blog? My computer's been broken for so long I had no idea!

6/10/2005 01:00:00 PM  
Anonymous crionna said...

fafnir said

You've officially "made it" Ed :)

6/10/2005 01:37:00 PM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

thanks for stopping by fafnir...we thought you were swolloped up by a big whale while "gone fishin'"

Ok, so only I was worried about that...hating those mammalian aircraft carriers the way I do...

still glad to see you're computer's fixed again.

6/10/2005 02:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Macallan said...

Thanks Edward.

I actually agree with Holland Cotter's comparison, though his editor let Cotter's misspelling of Paul Reubens' name slip through.

6/10/2005 04:31:00 PM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

that's just vicious... ;-)

6/10/2005 06:28:00 PM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

oops...I see I misspelled it...Freudian, no doubt

6/10/2005 06:33:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home