If I were to go raiding among the stacks of the National Gallery and the Smithsonian Institutions to decorate my White House, I'm not sure I could have done that much better than the Obamas have done-without provoking controversy, at least. I would have pulled from the government museums a Willie Cole and a Kara Walker, for more black artists, but then the press would flip out. Let's take a look at their home decorating artist list, and propose a few substitutions.
They pulled a great Sam Francis and a fabulous Richard Diebenkorn. They pulled some Rothko and some Jasper Johns. This is a high class act here, people! Big brands! But good ones. Which, you know, I would be all "give me your most expensive paintings, muh ha ha." Because why not? Best of all, they brought in a fabulous Glenn Ligon.
On the not-so-great side of things? They got themselves a Degas (boring) and a Susan Rothenberg (WHICH IS GARBAGE).
Here are our suggestions for amendments and additions to their collection!
I would pull one of the National Gallery's Philip Guston's, because, what is better than considering your mortality and the passage of time over coffee?
And I would have pulled this Twombly, because it is a mess, and so is politicking.
Also I would be like gimme gimme gimme this Hans Hofmann. Who else better symbolizes the value of immigration to America?
And how could you not want to wake up to this Morris Louis? It is like, "Hello, whee, let's go stick it to the foreigners today!"
But you know, in the end? Kind of wow, nice job, Obamas and their interior decorator and curator.
Nothing with rainbow colors please. The gays. They take everything as a sign.
I was going to say they really really should have picked some Alma W. Thomas but lo and behold, THEY DID.
But like what is your beef against Susan Rothenberg? Horsies!
They should have just bought some vintage Soviet Propaganda posters.
and Hummel figurines.
Oh come on, if you're going to pick a Guston it might as well be a Klan painting.
Disagree. One of his delicious abstracts, which are all about color and a bit more subtle, dontcha think? Too grand a gesture and there goes the arts earmark in the next budget.
But if they picked the Morris Louis, the right would be all, "See, this is the dude's obsession with JFK coming out again. What a narcissist!" Or, actually, no, because the right wing commentariat knows nothing about art history.
Oh this is highly enjoyable!
You are correct!
What could be more boring than a Rothko or two? I'd have added an Ellen Gallagher because she's awesome and swapped the Ruscha they chose for a piece of his that's less... orange? I think one Alma Thomas is enough. Keep the blue one and substitute a LeWitt or Stella if you want colorful and hard-edged.
Nothing in 3-D? or giant pencils sculpture garden?
Now that's art!
Kara Walker's work is meretricious crap and I hate it all. How creative does one have to be to make white puppets raping black slave puppets? OOOOOOhhh, it's soooo "edgy" and "fierce" and "hardcore". Meh.
seems more hardcore than an orange square...? I guess I agree that it gets old fast, but the first few times I found it quite affecting.
While I am very pro- hating whatever art for whichever reasons, what with having BFA in interdisciplinary cynicism, I don't think this assessment is a sum of its parts.
You're wrong. While I sometimes fear that she has cut herself into a corner, her body of work to date is fanfuckingtastic. She picked a medium that suited her message, if you will, and made it her own, for one. Some shows are use space less well than others but it is never less than gut-wrenching to see these narratives on a gallery wall. It IS edgy, fierce and hardcore subversive work that works-- and just what the hell is wrong with that?
It's a cheap shot. It's like Maplethorpe. Shocking but very shallow. On a technical level, it fails to impress and on an intellectual level it is cynical and crude.
A cheap shot against whom? The viewer? Plantation owners past? African American history and the representation of the black female body are hardly resolved or irrelevant issues. Kara Walker is utilizing shock as a tool, and you can take it on a shallow visual level, at face value, and fully miss the cultural, historical, and theoretical contexts. I don't think it is a cheap shot to make a viewer have to deal with a difficult issue, or exert some effort for aesthetic or intellectual satisfaction. But people choose to deal with art for different reasons, not everyone wants to be challenged. Direct them to the Impressionist wing. Or to the John Currin survey.
But to "Meh" ... now THAT is cynical.
Also, as far as "technical level" is concerned ... that is complicated. Some of her pieces are sold as intellectual property rights, as an image, and the execution is handled by the Museum/Gallery etc. I saw a somewhat poorly installed piece at the MFA in Boston. I saw a series of lithographs that were technically astounding, but they would have been printed by a master printer. But I don't go to see Kara Walker's work for the precise edges of the paper cutouts.
I'd also include a David Park, maybe, among others of his school. Focus on WPA artists, etc.-- a program we should resurrect!
why not commission Currin to paint a portrait of Barack and Michelle? Now THAT would be interesting!