Leslee’s view of Josiah McElheny’s Endlessly Repeating Twentieth Century Modernism is much more orderly than mine, showing the linear repetition of shiny bottles reflected ad infinitum toward a distant vanishing point. From my angle, I saw a chaos of bottles reflecting bottles reflecting other bottles, the clean geometry of classical perspective being replaced by a self-referential visual clusterfuck. From her taller height, Leslee saw the forest; from my shorter one, I saw the trees. I suppose that’s how it is touring a museum with a friend: the two of you can’t step into the same exhibit twice.
As challenging as it can be to understand a single work of art, singly, adding another perspective can sometimes clarify matters. Viewed on its own while you’re on your own, a single work of art speaks a given language; viewed alongside other works and in the company of other views, that same single work might say something else entirely.
When Leslee and I went to the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston on Friday, we were intent on seeing “El Greco to Velasquez: Art During the Reign of Philip III,” and we did. We hadn’t planned, though, to juxtapose the 17th century works of visionaries such as El Greco with the 20th century Spanish realism of Antonio López García, but we did. How better to understand El Greco’s almost hallucinogenic Toledo landscape than by considering it against López García’s almost photographic Madrid? And how better to appreciate multiple artists’ versions of Mary’s immaculate conception than by viewing them before considering López García’s multiple perspectives of a less-than-immaculate bathroom?
Upon exiting the Antonio López García exhibit and on our way to lunch, Leslee and I passed the reflective bottles of McElheny’s “Endlessly Repeating Twentieth Century Modernism,” which are contained in a reflective case situated incongruously between the Museum’s upscale first floor restaurant and the stairway leading to its more moderately priced basement cafeteria. Perhaps by reflecting upon the shiny bottles of twentieth century Modernism, you can better decide where to eat? The MFA’s two dining venues provide another sort of tableau, with a dazzling parade of culinary choices being another kind of aesthetic object reflecting ad infinitum toward a digestive rather than visual vanishing point. Shall I have pizza or stir-fry, or soup, salad, or sandwich? In this century more than previous ones, we live amidst a dizzying array of choices. Is it any wonder we occasionally have problems seeing the forest for the trees?
On the wall opposite the reflective case containing Josiah McElheny’s Endlessly Repeating Twentieth Century Modernism, along the hallway across from the Museum’s restaurant and on the way to the stairway to its cafeteria, Jim Lambie’s RSVPmfa offers a dizzying array of geometric patterns interrupted by three-dimensional objects–chairs, sequined handbags, and the like–erupting from the starkly flat visual pane into the lived space of passersby. Viewed on its own, RSVPmfa is psychedelic enough, its black and white zebra stripes seeming to swirl with your every step: an optical illusion writ large. As luck, chance, or astute curating would have it, Lambie’s wall seems most interesting when viewed reflected in McElheny’s mirrored case, the endless repetition of last century’s RSVP becoming Postmodern when viewed as an unintentional tableau. Sometimes the best way to view one object is by considering it alongside another radically different one.
Click here for my photo-set of these two juxtaposed works; you can find Leslee’s photos from our day at the MFA here. Enjoy!
May 5, 2008 at 9:20 pm
It’s fun, going to a well-publicized exhibition and liking it better for what is always there.
Speaking of hallucinogens, I spent some time wiggling my mousepad scroller while watching your the three RSVPmfa photos. Far out!
LikeLike
May 6, 2008 at 10:51 am
Yes, the piece was even more “far out” in person, with the zigzagging pattern & the jutting three-dimensional objects working together to create a dizzying effect.
I know that curators take a great deal of care to plan exhibits & exhibit spaces, but I like to think that the best juxtapositions happen by pure chance.
LikeLike
May 6, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Beautiful images.
LikeLike
May 6, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Lorianne, I really like your photo at top, and your comments on the juxtaposition. It’s been fun to see and read these two different takes on the same exhibitions…
LikeLike
May 13, 2008 at 5:57 pm
I was surprised by the use of the word “cluster**” – disappointed that you are resorting to profanity, if indeed it is as I have never heard the word, but it sounds as if it means “orgy”.
The f word is great in context but this was not the appropriate context!
Nancy
LikeLike
May 14, 2008 at 10:50 am
For the sake of linguistic clarity, “clusterfuck” doesn’t refer to an orgy. Instead, it’s a military term referring to a situation in which multiple things are fucked up. It’s etymologically related to the word “snafu,” which many folks use in all sorts of contexts without, perhaps, realizing the word is an acronym for “situation normal, all fucked up.”
In other words, “clusterfuck” is a colloquialism, not necessarily a profanity. It refers to a messed up situation where multiple things are going wrong, which is exactly why I used it in this context. Trying to make sense of a jumbled mess of self-referential reflections was, for me, a sensory clusterfuck: sheer and utter confusion.
I’m glad to know there is an “appropriate context” for profanity. As soon as someone can adequately define for me what the fuck that “appropriate context” might be, I’ll be sure to limit my profanity usage thusly. 😉
LikeLike