I never go to opening nights. That sounds so pompous. As much as I love cheap wine and gossip, I realized late in life that standing in an empty (of chatter and elbows) space leaves lots of room for connection with the pieces being displayed. Thanks for the history lesson, Joe. So true. Art has to be seen to come alive.
Thanks for your comments. When I was an art student I was in love with a small image in my art history textbook of Umberto Boccioni’s 1910 painting The City Rises. A few months later on a school trip to NYC, I walked into a room in the MOMA and the actual painting at over 6 feet by 10 feet nearly knocked me over. Having access to art on the screen is great, but there is nothing like the real thing—which I fear we are losing touch with. I hope to go to the Prado one day to see Las Meninas in person. I saw Velázquez’s Rokeby Venus in London and again the displacement of the portrait on another mirror/not mirror demonstrates how painting can be retinal and of the mind.
Couldn’t agree more with your experience. (Also major envy here) same experience- enough so I approached the Louvre with some serious mix of trepidation and curiosity. Found myself to be pretty disappointed in the Mona Lisa - though stunned by St. Anne with Mary and the infant Jesus (cannot remember correct name). My single biggest disappointment was the Wreck of the Medusa. No emotional effect after a lifetime of awe.
Thoroughly engaging piece. Not having seen a Diego Velasquez painting with my own eyes I can only say it seems a work on intellect and exquisite skill, but formed first as thought and imagination. Perhaps in its genesis no different - except in execution - than Duchamp’s. (Admittedly I’d despise him except I have seen Nude Descending the Stairs and The Bride Stripped Bare by her Bachelors, pieces that elicited admiration on my part.)
I never go to opening nights. That sounds so pompous. As much as I love cheap wine and gossip, I realized late in life that standing in an empty (of chatter and elbows) space leaves lots of room for connection with the pieces being displayed. Thanks for the history lesson, Joe. So true. Art has to be seen to come alive.
Your scholarship and observations here are brilliant.
Thanks for your comments. When I was an art student I was in love with a small image in my art history textbook of Umberto Boccioni’s 1910 painting The City Rises. A few months later on a school trip to NYC, I walked into a room in the MOMA and the actual painting at over 6 feet by 10 feet nearly knocked me over. Having access to art on the screen is great, but there is nothing like the real thing—which I fear we are losing touch with. I hope to go to the Prado one day to see Las Meninas in person. I saw Velázquez’s Rokeby Venus in London and again the displacement of the portrait on another mirror/not mirror demonstrates how painting can be retinal and of the mind.
Couldn’t agree more with your experience. (Also major envy here) same experience- enough so I approached the Louvre with some serious mix of trepidation and curiosity. Found myself to be pretty disappointed in the Mona Lisa - though stunned by St. Anne with Mary and the infant Jesus (cannot remember correct name). My single biggest disappointment was the Wreck of the Medusa. No emotional effect after a lifetime of awe.
Thoroughly engaging piece. Not having seen a Diego Velasquez painting with my own eyes I can only say it seems a work on intellect and exquisite skill, but formed first as thought and imagination. Perhaps in its genesis no different - except in execution - than Duchamp’s. (Admittedly I’d despise him except I have seen Nude Descending the Stairs and The Bride Stripped Bare by her Bachelors, pieces that elicited admiration on my part.)