Ellsworth Kelly and a number of other minimalist artists always left me a bit cold. They were works I would glance at and move on from quickly without really thinking about what the artist was trying to achieve or understanding the thinking behind the pieces. Kelly for instance, with his flat color and simple geometric canvasses were easy to skip past, especially when seen as a single work in a museum setting. It wasn’t until I saw a retrospective show of his work that I truly grasped what he was saying. Seeing a large body of his work together in a single setting gave me a greater appreciation for his work and the work of other minimalist like Donald Judd.
yes! I know exactly what you mean. retrospectives are such a gift in this way, allowing more depth to quieter works that I might skip when alongside some of my favourite paintings
EKs retrospective at Glenstone (then in Paris, then Doha) last year changed my opinion of him entirely - now I appreciate the one offs at museums in a totally different light
You raise an interesting philosophical question. Just how important is Art literacy? Does the Renaissance B side tell you nothing of its more notable brethren? If context is essential to understand or appreciate Art, if all artist struggle to give form to unconscious emotion, are not all art forms shrouded equally in mystery?
Well those Time mirrors didn't do him any favors, lol! There's something here about art in the hands of dealers vs art in the hands of art historians, but that's a longer story...
I tend to do this a LOT but mostly with music. Lorde’s ‘Solar Power’ is a record that i really disliked when it first came out, and now I love it. I also think it’s fun to think of some exhibitions or works of art as bridges to another time where it might resonate differently. For instance, I really didn’t enjoy Clairo’s record ‘Sling’ at first, but now that ‘Charm’ is out, i appreciate Sling more as an album where her sound was transitioning. I try to keep that in the back of my mind when thinking of any artist’s work(s).
I think so. I also tend to have a lot of bandwidth for musicians messing up, for some reason haha. Music means so much to me generally, and so I feel like I give records multiple chances.
It’s far too easy for art appreciation to fall into an echo chamber, especially for time sensitive viewers. Inherently there’s nothing wrong with focussing on the things you like / prefer / know / etc. Seeing them, even if you’re seeing something for the second time, can be an enriching and rewarding experience. But I’ve found that all art… no matter how “bad” you might think it is at first glance, can offer something of interest / learning / value to those who slow down to examine it. It might be something as time as an interesting brush stroke, but it will be there.
Ellsworth Kelly and a number of other minimalist artists always left me a bit cold. They were works I would glance at and move on from quickly without really thinking about what the artist was trying to achieve or understanding the thinking behind the pieces. Kelly for instance, with his flat color and simple geometric canvasses were easy to skip past, especially when seen as a single work in a museum setting. It wasn’t until I saw a retrospective show of his work that I truly grasped what he was saying. Seeing a large body of his work together in a single setting gave me a greater appreciation for his work and the work of other minimalist like Donald Judd.
yes! I know exactly what you mean. retrospectives are such a gift in this way, allowing more depth to quieter works that I might skip when alongside some of my favourite paintings
EKs retrospective at Glenstone (then in Paris, then Doha) last year changed my opinion of him entirely - now I appreciate the one offs at museums in a totally different light
You raise an interesting philosophical question. Just how important is Art literacy? Does the Renaissance B side tell you nothing of its more notable brethren? If context is essential to understand or appreciate Art, if all artist struggle to give form to unconscious emotion, are not all art forms shrouded equally in mystery?
a very good point that b-sides have something to teach us about the main event!
I'm so glad you went in...Mungo Thompson is a gem! I'm so excited for his show to come here next!!!
I'm so embarrassed I wasn't familiar!
Well those Time mirrors didn't do him any favors, lol! There's something here about art in the hands of dealers vs art in the hands of art historians, but that's a longer story...
I tend to do this a LOT but mostly with music. Lorde’s ‘Solar Power’ is a record that i really disliked when it first came out, and now I love it. I also think it’s fun to think of some exhibitions or works of art as bridges to another time where it might resonate differently. For instance, I really didn’t enjoy Clairo’s record ‘Sling’ at first, but now that ‘Charm’ is out, i appreciate Sling more as an album where her sound was transitioning. I try to keep that in the back of my mind when thinking of any artist’s work(s).
I love the crossover! do you find that you come back and appreciate the records more because you're at a different phase of your life?
I think so. I also tend to have a lot of bandwidth for musicians messing up, for some reason haha. Music means so much to me generally, and so I feel like I give records multiple chances.
It’s far too easy for art appreciation to fall into an echo chamber, especially for time sensitive viewers. Inherently there’s nothing wrong with focussing on the things you like / prefer / know / etc. Seeing them, even if you’re seeing something for the second time, can be an enriching and rewarding experience. But I’ve found that all art… no matter how “bad” you might think it is at first glance, can offer something of interest / learning / value to those who slow down to examine it. It might be something as time as an interesting brush stroke, but it will be there.
I love the idea that there's always something to love/learn about art if we look hard enough