Experiment: Slow Art

Today I’m going to MoMA with a purpose: the challenge is to really look at a work. I mentioned a Slow Art event at MoMA a while ago. It asked participants to pick one or two works and just look at them from 15 minutes to an hour. I don’t think I can handle an hour–so I’m aiming for 30 minutes.

But now I have to choose what to look at for that long? I’m tempted to choose something in the Monet’s Water Lilies exhibition, because it will be big and pretty and I don’t know that I fully appreciate Monet.


I’ve also been checking out the permanent collection. Of course, I can’t go wrong with a Picasso. The collection has a magnificent collection of Odilon Redons–but they don’t seem to be on view. I love Klimt’s The Park, but I’m afraid I would get bored with it.


Of course, maybe I should choose something less well known. If they had Cy Twombly’s Four Seasons up, I know what I would choose (it’s another absolutely beautiful set of seasonal paintings.) I have quite the penchant for landscapes this morning. A portrait would also be a nice choice, because you could make up stories about the person. Ah well, decisions, decisions.

Anybody have any ideas?

To do: Slow Art


Life can be frenetic in the city. Even when you go to one of the museums, it’s easy to rush around, especially as crowded as some exhibitions are (ahem, Vermeer). How long do you think you stand in front of a picture, on average? How about one you really like? Slow Art is a event happening this Saturday at MoMA that challenges you to smell the roses. Each person picks one or two pieces on view and just looks at them for a set period of time, from 10 minutes to an hour. Afterwards the group will have lunch at the museum cafe and talk about their reactions.

I love this concept. Even when I look at something I like, I probably stare at it for 2 or 3 minutes–especially when I’m surrounded by a slew of other beautiful things. My mom is in town, so I’m not sure what we have on the agenda for the weekend, but this one is up there on my list.
Of course, you could just challenge yourself next time you feel you are rushing things.

New Photography 2009 at MoMA Isn’t About Photography

Installation view of Sarah VanDerBeek and Walead Beshty

It’s about so much more.

Confused? Don’t be. The New Photography 2009 show at MoMA looks pretty straightforward. It is 2 rooms of really really large prints. We’re still taking flat plane here, but this is no Ansel Adams. These images are collaged, staged, and manipulated into their final appearance as prints. It suggests that contemporary photography is toying with the bounds of photography while incorporating it as one tool of many in one’s artistic practice, thus redefining or pushing the concept of what photography can be.

Sterling Ruby, Artaud
For example, Sterling Ruby comprised the image left with photographs of graffiti he saw in Italy which he digitally manipulated while also adding the slash/drip mark pattern digitally. So he starts with the traditional photographic image and transforms it into something else.

Installation view Carter Mull, left, and Sterling Ruby

MoMA’s website points out that for all of the artists “their images all begin in the studio or the darkroom and result from processes involving collection, assembly, and manipulation. Many of the works are made with everyday materials and objects, as well as images from the Internet, magazines, newspapers, and books. Some of the artists also work in other mediums and their pictures relate to disciplines such as drawing, sculpture, and installation.” Yet methods of incorporating photography vary among the six artists. When I was there yesterday, I happened in on a gallery lecture and found their diverse artistic practices fascinating.

Leslie Hewitt, Riffs on Real Time
Hewitt’s work looks the most traditional. It is carefully staged still lives and, like in the image above, it has both personal and historical levels. The inclusion of photographs, in this and other works, prominent.

Daniel Gordon, Red Headed Woman

Daniel Gordon’s creatures are assembled from clippings from magazines and photographs. He creates an image or tableau, photographs it, and then takes it apart to reuse the parts in other scenes. What I found interesting about this is that he considers the final photographic print the work of art rather than documentation.

Walead Beshty, Three Color Curl

Walead Beshty hasn’t actually taken a photograph in this work, but made one. The artist exposes photosensitive paper to light to make it develop different shades and shapes of abstract color in these large scale works. (Which are hung vertically at the Met, despite the image here being horizontal.) While he is updating a black and white process that artists such as Man Ray used, his work fundamentally differs from photography as we think of it.

Beshty does not use a camera to reproduce a copy of an original thing, a traditional definition of photography. All the artists, except Leslie Hewitt, were included for going beyond that simple definition of photography whether through creation of the original or manipulation of the copy. Certainly we are all familiar with digitally enhanced images; they fill magazines. Yet they only enhance, not transform. This exhibition suggests that such traditions are no longer necessary. But then what is photography?