[BRIEF NOTE] Notes on Art
Jul. 2nd, 2004 09:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldI'm still processing my reactions to my recent visit to the AGO (made in the charming company of ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
echomyst and thehollow), specifically to the Impressionist Visions showing of works by Turner, Whistler, and Monet, and Rodney Graham's A Little Thought Now On View showing (closed now, sadly).
It's no secret that I tend to prefer the graphic arts of the 19th century, considered as a whole, to the graphic arts of the 20th century. It might be a bit less known that I particularly like the works of the Impressionists--the second and last decade of the French Second Empire was an extraordinarily fertile period. The works on display by Monet weren't the sort of works that I'm most fond of, perhaps because the exhibition's basic purpose was to contrast and compare Monet's works with that of a much broader artistic movement than that of the Impressionists. The signal works of the Impressionists weren't present in that exhibition, and in my opinion that's a good thing.
I'm left scrambling, though, by the Rodney Graham exhibition. His images (moving and still) were technically quite accomplished; his choice of materials in his multimedia exhibitions were interesting; his pop music was well-written, successful in a wide variety of genres. (I think that his 2-CD album is still available for purchase from the gift shop. Perhaps I may yet go?) I was left cold, though, when these three elements of his finished works are combined. What effect is Graham trying to produce apart from a sense of distance? I'm unfond of distance, I suppose, in my personal life as in the wider world, and the dislike in the first instance might be spilling over into the second instance. But still, I feel that despite his demonstrated technical skill, Graham's works are fundamentally hollow, lacking in a necessary substance.
echomyst and thehollow), specifically to the Impressionist Visions showing of works by Turner, Whistler, and Monet, and Rodney Graham's A Little Thought Now On View showing (closed now, sadly).It's no secret that I tend to prefer the graphic arts of the 19th century, considered as a whole, to the graphic arts of the 20th century. It might be a bit less known that I particularly like the works of the Impressionists--the second and last decade of the French Second Empire was an extraordinarily fertile period. The works on display by Monet weren't the sort of works that I'm most fond of, perhaps because the exhibition's basic purpose was to contrast and compare Monet's works with that of a much broader artistic movement than that of the Impressionists. The signal works of the Impressionists weren't present in that exhibition, and in my opinion that's a good thing.
I'm left scrambling, though, by the Rodney Graham exhibition. His images (moving and still) were technically quite accomplished; his choice of materials in his multimedia exhibitions were interesting; his pop music was well-written, successful in a wide variety of genres. (I think that his 2-CD album is still available for purchase from the gift shop. Perhaps I may yet go?) I was left cold, though, when these three elements of his finished works are combined. What effect is Graham trying to produce apart from a sense of distance? I'm unfond of distance, I suppose, in my personal life as in the wider world, and the dislike in the first instance might be spilling over into the second instance. But still, I feel that despite his demonstrated technical skill, Graham's works are fundamentally hollow, lacking in a necessary substance.
