Philadelphia Museum of Art: Part 3

The color of those southeastern islands are so closely connected to what I would imagine from the short stories of Somerset Maugham...

 This is rather rare still life picture by Picasso---kind of look like in-between Cezanne and  Gaugin?

 I have never heard of this artist before, but I loved this picture. William Baziote was born in Pittsburgh, PA and was an artist in NY around the same time Rothko. Apparently he had strong style of "mysterious and poetic," and he had influence from Joan Miro---I see.

 A beautiful modern architectural design, very suit to the picture below

Fantin-Latour is the artist who draw the flowers very realistically, and yet adding something far beyond...

Philadelphia Museum of Art: Part 2

I like the clarity of the air. Looks like a winter picture.

Sorry the quality of the panel is pretty bad. The picture is by Henri Rousseau. It was painted in 1886, but so surprisingly modern and beautiful.

Philadelphia Museum of Art: Part 1

After long long time of planning, I finally had a chance to visit Philadelphia Museum of Art. It was everything and more than I expected---I did not have enough time to finish the museum, I definitely have to go back!

Philadelphia is a very unique city with a rich history. Apparently the billionaires who settled in and around the city used their enormous wealth to transplant the "arts & culture" into the New World---meaning, they collected excellent artworks from all over the world. I am often very impressed by the collection of American museums, even in medium size cities (like Indianapolis, Austin or Minneapolis).

The Philadelphia museum (or the educational entity which later became the museum) was built in 1876.  The collection is very diverse and have excellent pieces. Here are some of my favorites.

View of Philly from the entrance

The artist Augustus Saint-Gaudens is an American artist. The original sculpture is made for Madison Sq.  Garden, NY. in 1891.

I remembered this work from Munch exhibition at MoMA (2006). It was an excellent collection...I remember it very vividly it surprised me that it was 5 years ago...

http://www.moma.org/visit/calendar/exhibitions/85

MoMA: Abstract Expressionist New York (3) Preference?

There were many works from different artists. I found some good, some not so good, some total nonsense---but they are all picked as works worth showing in the same exhibition. I found it was really interesting. Here are some pics. I graded according purely how much I liked them--you can give grades of your own. I would love to hear your opinion!
Here we go.

<B> out of A( I love!) to C (it's a crap!)

<A>

<A> ! For some reason, it looks beautiful...

 <C> What is this supposed to be?

<B> I do not mind putting this on my yard (if I have one)--- for some reason.

<A and C> I like the first pic, but not the second one. Do not ask me why.

<A and C> Again, same painter but I like the first one, I hate second one.

 <A> OK, this black picture supposed to have 3 "shades" of black. Which I did not see. But I like the guts and elegance! The MoMA panel said that somebody resigned from membership when the museum purchased this picture. What is a shame! What is the point of having a Museum of Modern Arts?

MoMA: Abstract Expressionist New York (2) Rothko

I had a chance to go back to the exhibition to finish going through it before it ended. Many pictures and some interesting observations....let's take a look.

1 Rothko

Surprisingly (or not,) it took him very long time to form his "style." The process was clearly shown at the room with many pictures of Rothko from different periods.

Those 3 pictures represent well of the change he went through over time. Here is a quote by Rothko from MoMA's panel which explains the idea perfectly.

"The progressive of a painter's work, as it travels in time from point to point, will be toward clarity: toward the elimination of all obstacles between the painter and the idea, and between the idea and the observer".

 I found this quote quite deep. It feels so true--it may apply to any kind of art. To convey what you see and what you felt---exactly how it felt---to the canvas (music or writing, whatever the form you take) to convey to the observer as pure as possible! If you are (or tried to be) an artist, you know that it is indeed what you aim at, and how difficult it is. In a meanwhile, arts is the most powerful tool to "eliminate obstacles" which exsits between people and people for understanding each ideas and feeling--- "between painter and the idea, and between the idea and the observer."

Rothko took further pass to stop using bright colors (2nd and 3rd picture). Here is another quote from MoMA explaining the picture No. 3.

"often, towards nightfall, there is a feeling in the air of mystery, threat, frustration ---all of these at once. I would like my painting to have the clarity of such moments."

What do you think, how good he achieved his goal?