NY Times Armory Show Review
( Read this article to better familiarize yourself with the Armory at 100 exhibit)
NPR Article & Armory Show Podcast
( Listen to this great 4 minute podcast or read the article)
"The Armory Show Made Modern Art Something You Love to Hate."
(Read this New Republic piece for an interesting perspective)
(Listen to this fantastic podcast. It is my favorite of all time, and has amazing music.)
For extra credit : To receive credit type a one page reaction to the Fishko file podcast AND post a short comment relating the podcast to the Armory show below.
Due: 2/26/14
Due: 2/26/14
REQUIRED
After touring the Armory exhibit write a brief comment describing your experience. Make sure to discuss at least one artwork and one artifact from the introductory gallery that provided historical context.Students should also try to refer to one of the articles or the long podcast above.
Also comment on your experience watching the film or examining the other pieces of the permanent collection.
The New York Historical Society provides one with the history of New York City and America through artwork and artifacts from all eras of American history. The Armory Show 100 was an amazing view of avant garde artwork from the early 20th century. Upon entering the show, you are surrounded by American avant garde art and as soon as you pass through the room you enter a section with the European artwork. The distinction between the artwork becomes clear as you look at Van Gogh, Matisse, Duchamp, Cézanne, and others. Although some of the American’s ventured to emulate the impressionist style, none of them dared attempt the radically new and shocking style of cubism. While Duchamp’s piece entitled “Nu Descandant un Escalier,” or “Nude Descending a Staircase” depicting a cubist rendition of a nude descending a staircase was mocked and ridiculed, Matisse’s “Blue Nude” depicting a “vulgar, savage, inappropriate” scene of a woman lying provocatively in a forest, angered many people.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing I found very interesting was the complete transformation of popular American art from before the Armory Show to after it. During the Gilded Age popular art was stiff portraits of the wealthy and powerful figures of old New York and Hudson River School paintings of grand, awe-inspiring landscapes. After the Armory Show, however, popular art became American imitations of cubist artwork. It was amazing to see how much art had changed over such a short period of time.
Lastly, it was really cool to see all of the artifacts from New York City history, like the only remaining drafting wheel from the Draft Riot of 1863, one of the three remaining coaches in original condition from 18th century America, Hamilton and Burr’s pistols, presidential election buttons, and many more. While walking through the New York Historical Society you really get a sense of what the city was like and how it changed over time.
I really liked all the artifacts we saw in the New York Historical Society. It was smaller than the Met which in a way made it much more personal. I loved the placement of everything and especially enjoyed the Gilded Age paintings. In English class, we had read the Age of Innocence which was a Gilded Age novel. The paintings in the Gilded Age gallery were straight out of that book. One painting in that gallery I really liked was Samuel Ward McAllister who was a self-appointed arbiter of social acceptability. It was straight out of that book. Then we entered the Armory Show which was a stark contrast from the Gilded Age portraits. There was different subject matter. One painting I liked was Young Girl by Jacques Villon. It was a cubist painting and it was part of the Chamber of Horrors. The painting was very deceptive and you couldn't "discern the subject easily".
ReplyDeleteGreat comments! I'm eager to see the the rest of the group's reaction.
ReplyDeleteI personally enjoyed how the New York Historical Society tried to emulate the style of the original Armory Show back in 1913 with the different sectioned parts of the exhibit. The original show had the American art on the outside surrounding the avant garde European art in the center. The most unique part of the experience was seeing the vast difference between the avant garde of American art and the avant garde of European Art. It can be easily seen just by looking the Nude Walking Down the Stair by Duchamp. It was done in the cubist style of geometric shapes. In the original armory show, people waited for hours just to be able to view the piece of art. Interestingly enough, Theodore Roosevelt called this painting not art because of the vast difference it is to something like the Hudson River School of paintings.
ReplyDeleteAs for the rest of the museum, I think the most powerful part was the snapshots of September 11 in the entrance. Walking in, you can see a damaged door of Firetruck in front of many different pictures of the event and the aftermath. The most powerful image was probably a letter written by a child in elementary school to the terrorists. In the letter/drawing the student wrote
Turn around and go back to the airport and let these people out!!! A nice lady is waiting for you at the airport and she will give you a kiss.
It would be interesting that we will have people who were born after this event going to high school soon. As for me, I remember the event for seeing a plume of smoke rising all the way back in Queens that day while walking to preschool. Upon arriving, it turns out it was canceled because of this event.
It was so cool seeing the actual pistols Hamilton and Burr used in their infamous last duel, which we read about so long ago in the "Founding Brothers" (it was a little surreal too, because these were the actual artifacts we actually read about!!!). The painting where the people were pulling down King George the Third's statue was also really awesome; I loved seeing the many expressions of the people, some of them triumph, others more uncertain, and a few others fearful. It was all very symbolic (the people were taking down the symbol of tyranny and establish a true democracy in its place!!!), but my eyes were drawn to the Native Americans in the foreground, in the shadows. It was almost ironic, how the Americans, establishing their own freedom, restricted that of the natives, and pushed the natives further and further out of the picture (literally).
ReplyDeleteLike Anya and Stanley, I really liked how the museum curators tried so hard to make our experience of touring the Armory like how it would be experienced by those of its time!! There was the biggest crowd around Duchamp's "Nude Descending a Staircase" and Matisse's "Blue Nude", so I was kind of lingering to the back, and I found myself in front of Constantin Brancusi's "Mlle Pogany I". It was very simplistic, almost alien-like with its huge saucer-like eyes and tiny mouth. From its description, I gathered that a lot of the responses (like the rest of the controversial works in the Armory) was negative, but the response of one of the critics stood out to me. He wrote that the artist “has stripped away the partial disguise … and revealed unashamed the naked, essential facts of structure." And I looked at the sculpture again and started to see. And I realized that you didn't always have to see everything filled out for you in art, that art wasn't all laid out for you to understand and digest easily (maybe that's why critics attacked these kind of art forms, because they didn't understand it).
I also really loved watching the film!!! The presentation, in itself, was just amazing!! It was really fun seeing all of those different layers of screens and how they played around with the screens (llifting them up and down). (Also, the sound effects!! They were at once, startling and very effective.) The movie itself gave a really nice overview of New York City history, but it was very fast-paced. Which is inevitable, I guess, but I wished it slowed down a little (and maybe draw out the the prosper and optimism of the Roaring '20s and then have the truly jilting, impact of the Depression really really hit!!!!). (The movie would be a lot longer, but it would be really really effective and interesting to watch!!)
The first section of the museum (the part with the Hamilton-Burr pistols, and the connected section with the portraits) was really exciting because so much of it was really lifelike and felt very connected to the time periods of the art & artifacts it contained. In particular, the Hamilton-Burr duel pistols were almost unbelievable because they're actual pieces of history, and we'd sort of gotten the lead-up/drumroll/preparation from the entire chapter in Founding Brothers devoted to the Hamilton-Burr Duel. Some of the paintings of millionaires/business leaders/general rich people were also incredible because they (especially the ones from the Gilded Age) were great examples of how the upper class of the day both viewed themselves and wanted to be viewed.
ReplyDeleteThe Armory show was an incredible recreation of the original show (art-wise, even if not location-wise) and was a great display of the influence that French Impressionist/Fauve/etc. styles began to have on American painting, and the artistic upheaval that their influenced caused. Matisse's "The Blue Nude", Duchamp's "Nude Descending a Staircase", and the entire room dedicated to the typical American art of the day were perfect examples of this, especially when coupled with stories of how viewers responded to the works of Duchamp and Matisse. Hearing about the antipathy and confusion of the viewers, coupled with seeing painter Robert Chanler's "Parody of the Fauve Painters", was a really really great window into the perceptions of the time period.
Bang! The opening gallery, filled with incredible artifacts, moved my historical imagination. I saw Hamilton and Burr at Weehawken, stood in front of Washington at Federal Hall, and watched him sitting after his inauguration. Likewise, the portraits of the American bourgeois were intriguing, offering us a candid glimpse into the reality of the nation's emerging dominant class. My neighborhood, and that in which I used to attend middle school, contains street names almost exclusively formed as homages to wealthy, famous men or families. For instance, I live on Clinton Street, named after the famous, wealthy Clinton political dynasty that produced both George and DeWitt Clinton. Along these lines, my old school was bordered on one side by Livingston Street. It was a shock as well as a pleasure to see a portrait of one of these famous Livingstons, who's lineage today descends to our former presidents George H and W Bush.
ReplyDeleteYet much more interesting was the Armory show exhibition. Like Kyle said, the show was a brilliant recreation of the original, even if not in the same physical grandeur. I greatly enjoyed Duchamp's "Nude Descending a Staircase", as well as the Redon paintings. And yet I fully see the New Republic's argument - for me, these paintings were, at face value, a sensation, a visual commodity that could've only achieved its real meaning given more time for contemplation and solitude. I recall overhearing a comment a stranger made to Mr. Sandler as he addressed us as a group. The man remarked that he was surprised that we did not know the author of said painting. When reading the New Republic article, this anecdote kept coming back to me. Why is it surprising that a group of teens is unfamiliar with a work of art over a century old? Does familiarity void (as the article proposes, albeit in a different sense) a genuine experience of modern art?
In the same way as Tiffany, I found the movie exhilarating if a slight bit disappointing. Again in agreement with her, it is obviously very difficult to fit the entirety of the city's history into twenty minutes, and even more demanding when you try to move upwards of six screens around while doing it. However, I would have exchanged more dynamic, dramatic portrayal of the city's history - like she said, perhaps drawing out the contrast in the change of attitudes by New Yorkers over just one decade in the interwar period - for the cinematic motion of the screens.
When I first stepped into the museum, the first thing that I noticed was the banged up firetruck door. Behind it was a collection of photographs taken around the WTC of the people, businesses and the environment. There was one photo where the first plane had hit the tower and people were just walking around normally, never even thinking about the possibility that it was terrorist attack. The 9/11 corner is a reminder to our generation really that history is not a thing of the past, it is constantly happening and we are all affected by it. Had it not been for my sister's first birthday my parents would have both been on the top floors of the Towers and probably would not have made it out. And that's a really scary thought. Like Tiffani, I also enjoyed the dethroning of the King George Statue in that the slaves and Native Americans in the shadows is another reminder that this country was built on the premise of inequality and oppression.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Armory Show itself- I thought it was so fantastic! I loved how the museum curators gave the viewers a sense of direction and told us to look at the American works and then that of the Europeans. The nude of American painter Robert Henri was quite disappointing. The concept of a life-size naked woman is startling and radical but the way Henri positioned the woman's limbs and the emotion he put in her face portrays her as small and meek. On the European side, of course, was Duchamp's "Nude Descending a Staircase" which I thought was a bit overrated. It was clear for me that the semi-circular shapes were symbolic of a woman's bosom and hips and the clear path of movement emphasized a descendance of some sort. I did like Odilon Redon who in 1913 was a best seller. His pieces as well as all of the other Europeans' made me think, it wasn't obvious what exactly was going on. That was the quality that was missing from the American side; something mysterious, thought provoking and different. Also, Jaime said that the European impressionists didn't believe in the color black or the idea of a straight line. Both elements according to art critics were found on the American side.
The film was very dramatic and very pro-NYC- it definitely made me appreciate all the culture within this city. But it wasn't in depth at all and felt rushed and gimmicky almost. The moving panels were distracting and hurt my head to follow.
A critique that I had of the Armory Exhibit is that it didn't feel fresh or crazy and I wish I lived in 1913 to really feel the impact that this style of art had not only in the art world but in literature and society too.
I really liked the museum as a whole. It was artistically setup, and really pretty! It was very bright and open, as opposed to the Met, which I've always found kind of intimidating, and also made me feel harried. Since this museum is a lot smaller, I was able to appreciate the artifacts much more.
ReplyDeleteIn the introductory exhibit, the picture that really stood out to me was the taking down of King George's Statue. I really liked the irony of the colonists putting up the statue because they were happy that he repealed the Stamp Act, but then they took it down as soon as they heard the Declaration of Independence at City Hall. Another element of the painting that really stood out to me was the spectrum of emotions. There was happy to fearful to confused.
In the Beauty's Legacy exhibit, I thought that I was stepping straight into the book 'The Age of Innocence'. I had just finished reading the book in American Literature and had also watched the movie, so it was really just seeing it come alive. I remembered everything being so ostentatious and very structured. It was also very status oriented, and all portraits. One portrait was of Samuel Ward McAllister, who was the writer of 'The 400', which was a huge list full of Who's Who of Old New York. If speaking about the exhibit as a whole, all the portraits are very stiff, and showed off wealth, dominance (in men) and femininity.
In the Armory Show at 100 -which was really, really awesome- we saw paintings that, unlike the ones in Beauty's Legacy, were in motion. The paintings were shocking because everything was changing much too swiftly for many, with reforms and immigrants and whatnot, and this just really emphasized the change all the more. I really liked how they created the exact pathway through which the people at the original Armory show would take, so we can see how they go from American paintings (which shocked them initially) to the shocking pieces like Madonna, by Edvard Munch, which portrays a nude woman with a slightly provocative expression, that make the American avant-garde paintings look normal to the really abstract pieces like Nude Descending A Staircase, by Marchel Duchamp, which made people ridicule it, to the one that incited the most emotion, Blue Nude, by Henri Matisse, which was burned in effigy in Chicago. It portrayed a woman who looked like the opposite of what females were thought to be. She looks masculine and wild, with her body in a weird shape. What I found most interesting was the words on the wall next to it. It had words that described what critics said of it at the time, and they were same words we had said. One word that stood out was 'corrupt' because it shows how people thought that art as they knew it was ending.
After the exhibit, we watched the film. I thought there was a little too much attention paid to the effects (like the screens moving up and down) which was fun at first, but then got really tiring. I also didn't like how they totally skipped the Roarin' 20s, because that was where, in my opinion, a lot of our culture was originated, and also where our identity as New Yorkers was shown. Where was the jazz? The flappers? The Harlem Renaissance? I think that instead of skipping to the end of WWI, we could spent more time in this era. But it did show the change of New York from just another city to the crossroads of the world it is now well.
Overall, I thought this was a really awesome trip, and that I loved seeing the actual pieces from the Armory exhibit. The only thing I wished was that there was more time to see pieces.
Oh, and a shout out to our tour guide (whose name slips my mind, darn) who was really nice and awesome!
I did not go on the trip but I have recently gone to the NY Historical Society on my own time. I have found that it was an amazing and, in some sense, strange experience. First off, I did not expect to be greeted by Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass, at least not statue of them either. I also found that the staff was very friendly and knowledgeable. Aside from the, the museum was also equally amazing as the staff was. Even while waiting to get my ticket, which I got for free due to it sometime between 6 and 8 pm on a Friday evening, I saw an amazing screen which had images that kept partially changing to form new images. And I was not the only one in awe of this magically screen of art, but it was also the group of tourists behind me in line who were also admiring the same screen.
ReplyDeleteI never thought I would see a caved in fire truck door as an exhibit for thousands of art fanatics to admire, at least until today. Also I found it very interesting that artifacts were buried in the floor, meaning even when I was typing my shoes, I was able to see artwork up close and personal.
In the Beauty's Legacy exhibit, I was met with a different perspective on beauty, which is the beauty of wealth and power, contrary to the typical effeminate beauty that is associated with the term, beauty. The exhibit contained mainly portraits of men, powerful men. Much to my surprise, I did not imagine a bishop would be presented as a powerful man, but I was wrong again. “The Right Reverend Henry Codman Potter” by Eastman Johnson was particularly interesting for the fact that had Potter’s attire been changed, he could have easily been mistake for a mogul. It completely changed my view on the churches of today, which I had normally considered to have minimal influence in America. I learned the Potter had actually enacted social and political reforms and had tried to rid NY of corruption. The latter was a noble cause, but likely impossible to achieve.
The most controversial paintings my partner and I saw were the three nude paintings by Robert Henri, Henri Matisse, and Marcel Duchamp. While Matisse’s “Blue Nude” and Henri’s “Figure in Motion” obviously presented a nude woman, Duchamp’s “Nude Descending a Staircase, No.2” presented the nude in a vastly different way. Duchamp clearly reached the pinnacle of abstract painting when he was creating this masterpiece, because shamefully, but honestly, I had no idea where the nude figure was. And then upon reading the plaque, I realized that he left the viewer to create their own painting by interpreting what the artist was trying to convey, and not vice versa. I was then shamed at myself for having thought that an artist should conform to my scope of understanding, when in reality, the situation was never like that while looking at Duchamp’s masterpiece. As of now I am assuming that the disarray of cylindrical and conic elements is the elusive nude. Besides this, I also so many other masterpieces, many of which were parodies, cartoons, and just pure works of genius.
If I were to rate this museum on the scale of a paper to the Mona Lisa, I would say this museum was a Fountain by Duchamp. This museum was strange at times, but in a quirky way. This museum is by no means perfect, by this I mean that handicapped people would have trouble navigating in the museum, or lazy people in the same manner. What I am trying to say is that the lack of an elevator was potentially the worst thing I could say about this museum, and its small size. (or maybe I missed the elevator because I was too focused on the art)
Sadly, I was unable to attend the trip with Mr. Sandler and 30 other lucky students, but I did have a chance to go on my own this week! Like Stanley and many others, I felt that the 9/11 tribute and the dented firetruck door were powerfully moving. During 9/11, I was in China, so I've only understood the pain and trauma vicariously. The corner dedicated to 9/11, however, allowed me to see, through photographs taken from different perspectives. For example, there was a photo of a list of Chinese names--presumably those who had died during the attack--and a photo of a man running through the dust (probably from the falling building?). Both of these made my heart ache, knowing that the people in the photo were probably innocent bystanders who had their lives turned upside-down. The most memorable of the photos, however, was probably the photo of a Muslim man holding a sign that says something along the lines of, "Don't hurt my Muslim neighbors." This stood out to me because it made me consider exactly how Muslims living in New York City must have felt--how scared they must have been and how worried they must have been about being accused (wrongly) for the terrorist attacks.
ReplyDeleteI felt as if the Beauty's Legacy: Gilded Age Portraits in America was the least defining aspect of the NY Historical Society, only because those portraits looked very similar to those in the Met or perhaps, other art museums. (Maybe I missed something, but why was a portrait of Mrs. Washington there?!) The women, men, and children depicted in these portraits were all well-dressed in crisp outfits and posed regally; the only aspect that may have allowed each portrait to stand out would be the accompanying caption. (Maybe I just don't have a taste for portraits... Hm..) A fact (is it considered a fact, really?) that interested me here though was a wall description that stated if a Gilded Age portrait was worth psychological insight, it was probably of a man.
The Armory Show at 100 was a much more pleasing and exciting experience! It was this part of the museum where I wished I had been able to go on the trip the most, because I was completely oblivious to the "Exhibit Starts Here" sign that pointed to the American works. Hence, I started out at near what was dubbed "the Chamber of Horrors," where Cubist paintings were prominent, (Oops.) rather than at the American avant-garde paintings. Although I missed out on the 'shock' that was supposed to occur from seeing the more conservative American avant-garde, and then the more shocking Cubism/Fauvism paintings, it was still a unique experience. I couldn't really see why Matisse's "Blue Nude" caused such an uproar. Like many other Renaissance paintings, it depicted a nude in a reclining position. According to critics of that time, however, the nude is distorted, harshly modelled, and "false to nature." How, though? Because she's painted white, with a blue outline? Perhaps we are already used to seeing all crazy sorts of art that critics of that time did not see, but I can't sympathize with the uproar. Compared to Duchamp's "Nu Descendant un Escalier" (Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2) which attracted more attention than any other individual piece of work in the original Armory show, Robert Henri's "Figure in Motion" almost seemed plain, lacking, and old-fashioned. I could barely imagine how viewers, who had only accepted Impressionism after being slowly introduced to it must have felt about the Cubist paintings at the original Armory show! After all, according to the text along the wall, it was because of the sudden exposure to all of these radical paintings that there was such controversy. Overall, I really enjoyed how the presenters attempted to mimic the original Armory show and give us the same experience. :)
Like David and Angela, I did not go with the group on Friday the 14th, but after reading my peers’ reactions on this blog, I decided to visit the New York Historical Society on my own. Since the pay-as-you-wish hour is from 6-8 p.m. on Fridays, when I got to the museum at 7, there was already a huge crowd. My initial impression of the museum was “this place is so small”, because the viewers (including myself) were constantly bumping into each other while trying to get a closer look at the artworks. However, despite its small size, the museum did a good job creating an enthusiastic and appreciative atmosphere with its artistic setup (like Udita said).
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the Armory Show at 100 was put together perfectly to emulate the original Armory Show of 1913. I liked how the curators of this exhibition gave us directions to view the American section before the European section. At first I didn’t understand the reason to this. I found out later that the European art was definitely more provocative than its American counterparts. As a result, people back then could not possibly handle these avant-garde works before getting exposed to the relatively mild Americans’ take on modern art.
My favorite painting in the American section was A Line of Mountains by Arthur B. Davies, who, according to my audio guide, was the president of the Association of American Painters and Sculptors and organized the original Armory Show. That this 1913 painting was considered to be conservative did not surprise me because there were clearly visible human beings (as opposed to the superimposed image in Duchamp’s Nude Descending a Staircase). However, what I liked about this painting was its openness to different interpretations while still giving the viewers something concrete. The indiscernible figures and setting gave me the power to imagine and interpret on my own. I think it was this vagueness that best characterized modern art. American Robert Henri’s Figure in Motion lacked this characteristic as the nude woman was clearly laid out in front of the viewers, giving them no opportunity to access their imagination.
The European section opened my eyes with all the famous paintings from renowned artists such as Henri Matisse, Marcel Duchamp, and Edvard Munch. Personally, I think Matisse’s paintings are very childlike and primitive because most of them are two-dimensional. I did not enjoy his paintings very much. If I were to travel back to 1913, I would probably be the one calling the Blue Nude “an artistic crime.” However, that was just my opinion. Many visitors at the museum seemed to enjoy the painting and there was always a crowd around it. I did enjoy the more futuristic and Cubist style of Duchamp, Gleizes and Picasso. The geometric figures allowed me to think and develop my own perspective on the paintings.
Lastly, the introductory exhibit (which I visited last) of the 9/11 snapshots was really powerful in conveying the horror of this event. As we move on with our lives, those photos on the wall and those actual artifacts buried in the floor will forever remind us of this tragedy.
Over all, my experience at the New York Historical Society was great and eye opening, and I plan to come back for future exhibits.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the NYT article about the armory show and listening to the podcast, I was very excited to see the Armory Exhibit. The introductory exhibit was very interesting and unique to me. Seeing the pistols that Burr and Hamilton used was amazing because I remembered learning about the duel in class and now I had the pistols in front of me. I agree with Angela that the 9/11 tribute was very moving. The pictures helped portray the various emotions and perspectives of that very day. I also thought the picture that had a sign which said “Don’t hurt my Muslim Neighbors” was very interesting for me because I remember that after 9/11 many Muslims were scared of the backlash that would occur in America. Many people were scared of being wrongly accused of the events during 9/11.
ReplyDeleteBeauty’s Legacy: Gilded Age Portraits in America was the least appealing exhibit for me. The paintings and portraits of nobility wasn’t very interesting to me. There wasn’t any particular painting that stood out to me there and I was waiting for the Armory Exhibit.
The Armory Show itself was very interesting because I read about all the controversy it caused when it first was displayed. The Armory Show in 1913 caused a lot of controversy because many Americans had never seen anything like it in the past. One quote that said “We will show New York something they never dreamed of” really stood out to me because I tried to imagine how it would have been like at that time to see these European artworks for the first time. At first, Duchamp's "Nude Descending a Staircase" appealed to me because it was unique, but I agree with Annique that it seemed overrated. But overall, the seeing the Armory Show was worth it and I enjoyed seeing the artwork displayed.
The film about NYC was amazing and I thought the screen effects were cool because I have never seen those effects be used. I enjoyed how the film showed the progression of NYC and the culture. Although none of the material shown was new to me, I enjoyed getting a reminder about the history of this city. The film made me very proud to be a New Yorker and I enjoyed it regardless if it was missing some things.
The artworks shown at the New York Historical Society provided a spectacular bridge between history and art. The Armory Show, in particular, was a wonderful opportunity to see an array of works that truly show the impact of modern art. At the Armory Show, I was stunned to see Marcel DuChamp’s Nude Descending a Staircase. I’d seen it so often on powerpoint slides on SmartBoards in schools, in tiny forms on textbook pages, and in black and white on art class worksheets that seeing it in person was just mesmerizing. The experience is completely different. I especially loved how one of the guides described cubism from the words of a seven-year old girl: “It is a painting that has been taken apart and then put together.” Another cubist artwork I liked was Frances Picabia’s Dances at the Spring which depicted two dancing girls fragmented into a patchwork of multiple shapes and shades.
ReplyDeleteAside from the brilliance of the Armory Show, I also enjoyed the exhibit Beauty’s Legacy: The Gilded Age. I especially liked the painting by Sargent of Mrs. Jacob Wendel, which clearly portrayed her stern demeanor with the way she was standing and the way her jaw was set.
The Luce Center was also very interesting as it shows a large collection of artifacts such as a dressing table made in New York City for Maria Livingston, daughter of chancellor Robert R. Livingston.
I also saw the pistols that Hamilton and Burr used, an experience that was utterly surreal.
After listening to the podcast on the Culture Shock of 1913, it showed me just how much artworks such as DuChamp’s Nude Descending a Staircase woke America out of its academic slumber. The podcast magnified the transformation that the 1913 Armory Show in New York had on America when it introduced the bold cubist art that had exploded in Europe. Although many people, including myself, are still shocked when they see the modernist artwork, it definitely does not compare with the shock of the people at the February 1913 Armory Show in New York.
All in all, visiting the New York Historical Society was a rare and gratifying experience.
As a New Yorker, I sometimes along with many others, forget what a wonderful and exhilarating place New York is. We tend to take skyscrapers, yellow taxi's, our "wonderful" transit system, and restaurants for granted. However, beneath all these external decorations, young people most tend to overlook the importance of museums, such as the New York Historical Society. In these under appreciated gold mines, there is history lying behind each and every artifact throughout.
ReplyDeleteAs others have mentioned, one of the most striking section was the WTC tribute and memorial. The banged up firetruck door really showed the braveness of the men and women who rushed to the WTC site to save regular people such as our parents, friends, and family. I still remember being on a tour bus the day before 9/11 and passing the centers. It is a very surreal thought.
An artwork that really intrigued my mind at the Armory Show was the Nude Descending a Staircase. Although I did not appreciate the painting at first, after a few minutes of looking at it, I could see why people enjoyed or hated the painting so much. From one perspective, the painting just looks like nothing. It just looks like shapes put together. In my opinion, I do not necessarily think that DuChamp purposely painted the painting to look like a nude, but rather make the human mind what it wants to see. I also think that not many people actually see the nude, but they say they see it anyways because they do not want to be the only ones not seeing it, while in reality nobody actually sees it. I think an equally appropriate title for this painting would be "A Hamburger Being Made by the 1 Percent."
The film presented at the museum was very passion provoking. It really made me proud to be a New Yorker. However, the film itself was not really filled with intriguing historical facts. However, that may be because of my awesome history teacher Mr. Sandler, who has already taught our class so much about US history. Whoever goes to Stuyvesant should take his New York City History class. The technological movements of the screen was also a nice touch to the theatrics. I would definitely come back the NYHS to look at more artifacts more closely. This was a great worthwhile trip.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMcsorleys bar
ReplyDeleteSunday, women drying their hair
This piece shows a coear contrast of topic shifting to everyday occurrences and average people rather than the prominent private artist painting the elite of banking gilded age.
The armory show exposed and educated the american public to this new style and movement. Art is for the masses not the elitist
Nude descending a staircase duchamp
Brought question of whether it was the artists responsibility for making art something a viewer would understand or weather it's the viewers responsibility to try harder to comprehend it. This painting caused so much confusion that it sparked discussion among the general public
One writer recalled 'street car conductors asked for your opinion on the nude descending the staircase as they asked u for your nickel'
Visiting the New York Historical Society's Armory Show was a wonderful, once in a life time experience that took you back to the late 19th, early 20th century so you could relive the cultural shock that swept NYC all those years ago. Before the first Armory Show, art in this city, as in most of America at the time, consisted mainly of portraits with single color backgrounds (normally something dark like black) of wealthy Americans. A good example of this era's art is "The Right Reverend Henry Codman Potter," which is an enormous painting of a standing reverend, making the onlooker feel small compared to this wealthy man's depiction. A few artists experimented with their art, like Robert W. Chanler and his "Leopard and Deer," but these experimentations were mild compared to what was happening in Europe. European artists were painting in the style of cubism, used bright colors instead of pastels, and deformed human bodies. All of this, and more, was so foreign to Americans that the European section of the Armory Show was known as the Chambers of Horrors. Most either laughed and scoffed at the art, or were horrified by it and called it vulgar and obscene. Obviously, it would be difficult for us to relate to our predecessors, since we have been exposed to so much modern art before. Nonetheless, we must try to empathize with these people to understand how truly major this moment in time was.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite piece in this exhibit was "Young Girl" by Jacques Villon for his use of intense colors and sharp angles. It is not difficult to make out the figure of the woman, and she possesses certain discernible attributes, like a very large chest. Also, the woman doesn't appear to be shy, but instead, like she is flaunting her body, which adds to her character.
The short film that was played in the museum was very worthwhile to watch. It quickly takes the viewer through New York's history, emphasizing the key points in time. Also, it puts things in perspective and shows just how different and innovative of a city NYC is in comparison to the rest of the world. NYC is very unique and no matter how much you may hate it (crime, noise, hostile people, etc...), you must also love and embrace all that it has to offer, such as the diversity of the population.
My favorite piece of the permanent collection in the museum was that of the painting of Edward Hyde, one of New York's governors, who was accused of being a transvestite by his opponents. In the painting, he is depicted as a fat, ugly woman who is having her portrait done. I find this to be very entertaining because I would never have imagined that before the existence of modern art, any painter would have dared to create something like this. It is an interesting and unique painting that one might look at for a good chuckle or two.
I found it interesting that Impressionism was featured alongside Cubism at the original Armory Exhibit. To me at least, Impressionism seems so fluffy and tame compared to Cubism, but at the time, Impressionism was still acknowledged as controversial. I mean, I love Impressionistic paintings; they're really pleasant to look at. But even that juxtaposition between the radical art of 10-20 years before the Armory Exhibit and the radical art of the years right around the Exhibit was shocking.
ReplyDeleteI think it all just goes to show how much the pace of change was accelerating at the time. With technological, economic, and cultural advancements, each decade or so was significantly different from the last. The pace of change was, I think, not anticipated by Western society, which was still pretty stuck in Victorian terms from Napoleonic times right up until World War 1. Sarah Fishko goes into a lot of depth about the explosive nature of 1913 in Western society in the "Culture Shock: 1913" episode of Fishko Files.
Speaking of WW1, I found the anti-German propaganda featured outside of the Armory at 100 room to be fascinating. It gives you a sense of public opinion during a critically important time in world history. I also thought that the photo of Emma Goldman (I think) giving a speech to workers in Union Square was very interesting. It was a striking image of a lone woman, standing on top of a car, exhorting the crow of bowler hatted men to some sort of union action.
I am very happy that I had the opportunity to visit the New York Historical Society and experience the Armory Show. I really enjoyed seeing the contrast of what art what popular before the first Armory Show and what became popular after. The Gilded Age Portraits in America (the exhibit we visited before the Armory Show) gave me a very good sense of what was popular in New York (and in America) before the Armory Show, which displayed the avant-garde modern works being produced in Europe.
ReplyDeleteMost of the art being produced before the Armory Show consisted of wealthy Americans posed against solid color backgrounds. These works of art didn't really effect me in any way or bring up any emotions in me, probably because the people who served as the focal points of the painting did not appear to be conveying any emotions. There is of course the exception of the painting "Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899) with His Grandchildren" which seemed more life-like than the others, probably because he was smiling and appeared less stoic or dour as some of the other portraits. The portraits were beautifully done but they didn't make me think or amaze me.
I really liked that the curators of the Armory Show attempted to recreate the layout of the original show in 1913; it allowed me to imagine how someone visiting the show a century ago would have reacted to the increasingly modern pieces. I liked seeing the progression of the pieces, which started with American avant-garde works and culminated in the abstract works of European artists (I thought there was really no comparison between the two-- the European art was by far more interesting and innovative.) Even though many American artists attempted to achieve the same effect as that of their European counterparts after the Armory show there was still a considerable difference in their takes on modern art.
I really enjoyed my time at the New York Historical Society. I was really impressed with the general layout of the building, and amazed at the historical figures standing outside the doors. When I first got there, the first thing I saw was some guy standing outside, and I wondered why he was standing in the rain. When I got to the entrance, I realized it was a statue of Frederick Douglas. That was my first impression of the museum, and I knew it would be different from other historical museums I’ve been to. I really enjoyed the Armory Show exhibit, and after listening to the short podcast, I knew what I was looking for: radical and controversial paintings like the nude paintings that were so interestingly described. In the exhibit room, I saw many unique paintings like Sunday, Women Drying their Hair by John Sloan which a tour guide explained to me that it was unique due to its carefree nature. After thinking about it, I agreed that art before had been quite extravagant and “beefed” up. Another painting I found extremely interesting, and again needed the tour guide’s explanation, was Moonlit Cove by Albert Pinkham Ryder, which had a hidden boat beneath the dark background. I was really shocked to see this, and it made me conscious of hidden messages within the other art works. I thought the three nude paintings by Matisse, Duchamp, and Henri were interesting, but not as crazy as the articles had made them seem, except Duchamp’s Nude Descending a Staircase which really confused me. I can understand how at the time the paintings produced a big scare, but honestly, I only found Duchamp’s crazy. I thoroughly enjoyed Duchamp’s work because it made me think, and made me try desperately to no avail, to understand what was the nude. One common thing I noticed about the paintings, were the heavy brush strokes and powerful paint marks which were really obvious. I thought that this was an element that defined this show, as it introduced modern art as a aggressive, “in your face” style of art that gets observers thinking and reacting.
ReplyDeleteI also got to check out the Beauty’s Legacy exhibit, and I thought it was interesting in that the beauty it referred to was more of power. When I first entered the room, the first painting I saw, I thought “He’s kind of good looking”. Upon walking all the way to the end, I realized that there were many people here, people in suits, people in dresses, even people of the Church. After looking around, I realized finally that everyone had a level of power or wealth that made them “beautiful”.
Overall, I thought the art in the Historical Society was very interesting, and I really enjoyed the layout of the building, from the statues outside, to the firetruck door in the middle of the main lobby. I felt it was a place both historical, yet modern.
I think that my favorite part of the trip was the introductory hallway that came before the actual exhibit, because it really provided much-needed historical context to the exhibit, it made the entire show more of story, more of a trip back into time for one to connect with. I especially enjoyed watching and listening to The Rite of Spring opera, which I remember learning about first term freshman year in music history. It was pretty awesome to be able to connect all three history classes that I've taken, Art, Music, and APUSH, into one exhibit. Within the actual exhibit itself, of course it was fascinating to see nude descending a staircase, and Matisse's Blue Nude, however neither of them were my favorite paintings there. I think that I actually ended up preferring the American imitation more than the real thing, which was more aesthetically pleasing, compared with the European art, which was even ugly at times.
ReplyDeleteThe video was certainly interesting, and fabulously done, but a little overly grandiose at times. What they did with the screens was really cool, but I felt that the whole thing was using aesthetic appeal and good music to play with my emotions and promote the idea of an exceptional, wonderful, New York. However, the experience as a whole was very worthwhile and i'm glad that i went.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe New York Historical Society, aside from being a lovely beacon of warmth on a cold day, is a vast collection of artifacts and paintings depicting New York history. One of my favorite things there was in the Revolutionary Era collection. It actually is not the most eye-catching thing. On the wall where all the artifacts and paintings from the Revolutionary Era artifacts are, way on the left is something resembling a wooden club. I actually passed over it before our tour guide pointed it out to me; it is a hunk of melted metal from the statue of King George. Apparently the statue was gilded and the colonists thinking that the statue was fully gold melted it only to find that it wasn't.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of gilded things, we also saw the "Beauty's Legacy: Gilded Age Portraits in America" exhibit. One thing that I could say about the exhibit was that it was very uniform. Every one of the paintings were portraits where the focus was on the people and the background was either dark or it was a garden. Also the people depicted in the paintings were wealthy, affluent men and women with a couple of children. It created kind of a severe air within the gallery, which at the time would have been set up to "educate" the less privileged and show them what proper art was.
The Armory Show was another experience all together. First the collection was white and was well lit in contrast with the Gilded Age exhibit. Also it tried to mimic the original Armory Show where they had the American artists first before slowly moving them on the Little Room of Horrors and the European paintings that it held. One of the paintings that I really liked was George Bellows "Circus". It was very different from the art before its time. It focused very little on the people with very little detailing on the faces. What it did instead was capture this sense of motion in the painting. You could tell that this was something that was moving instead of someone posing for hours on end for the painting. The European Painting that I shocked me the most was the "Blue Nude" by Henri Matisse. It was so out of its time with its depiction of the woman and with subject matter in general. The woman was not the perfectly proportioned nor was it in anyway ideal. Instead it was a little bit grotesque and just not what you would expect given the time period. The coloring as well is different than anything before. Matisse chose blues for the skin and that in itself made the woman seem a little bit ill and just not the norm. I was shocked when I first saw it so it must have been a big deal at the Armory Show nearly a century ago. Something else I noticed was that the American artworks seemed so much tamer than the European art. The "Figure in Motion" by Robert Henri was made as a reaction to the nudes at the show, the "Blue Nude" being one of them. They are nothing like each other. The "Figure in Motion" still holds true to the perfectly proportioned body and the healthy glow on her cheeks, which is so different from the "Blue Nude" which is not proportional and to a point grotesque.
I liked how the tour was set up. We first looked at the paintings and portraits of the privileged from the late 19th century and I got a good sense of how their lives were like. Then we went to the recreation of the Armory, which felt uncivilized compared to the artworks downstairs. I really appreciated how the NYHS setup the gallery and I got a good feeling of how the Armory was like a hundred years ago. To be honest I deeply despise any artwork from the Impressionism era and onward. To me the artworks feel half-assed compared to the grand works from the Renaissance, etc. Even I can probably draw some of the famous and expensive artworks from the modern era. However after my visit, I began to understand how critics observed these artworks and why these artworks are so praised. I get the impression that it was the curiosity and the hidden message inside these bizarre artworks that intrigued people. I also started to understand how these artists felt and thought when they were creating these artworks now that I have a better understanding of the time periods they lived in. Other than that, I enjoyed the 4th floor of the museum. I was very fascinated by the beautiful paintings from the Hudson River School. It felt great to be able to look at the paintings up close in person. Overall I enjoyed this trip and I got a better understanding of modern art(which I still despise).
ReplyDeleteAlthough I was not able to attend the class trip to the NY Historical Society, I still enjoyed my visit to the NY Historical Society. At the Armory Show exhibit, I looked at Duchamp's "Nude Descending a Staircase". During the time of the original Armory Show in 1913, Duchamp's artwork created a great stir in the New York area along with some of the other artworks. This piece was incredibly intriguing as the 'nude descending a staircase' was nowhere to be seen in the painting. Newspapers held contests for people to try to find the "Nude descending a Staircase". I spent several minutes trying to find the nude, but I couldn't find a spot that resembled anything implying a nude figure. This was intentional as it resembled the uncertainty of life in muddling the depiction of the nude figure. In the same way, I found Jacques Villion's "Young Girl" similarly just as interesting as although I could discern her head and her white shoes, I couldn't perceive a complete body. The body seemed disfigured as her legs seemed to be completely disconnected from her main body which was also unclear. I never had appreciated modern art, until I read the descriptions in the Armory Show which made me realize how modern art can symbolize real-life ideas.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, I discovered on display that there were not only forms of abstract modern art, but also several paintings. "In the Orchard" by Theodore Robinson caught my eye with its primarily beige colored background colored with mixed shades of dark red and blue brush marks. There was a woman standing next to a little child in what seemed to be an autumn day. A watering pail laid on the floor. However, it was the light colors blending with the sharp blue and red colors which caught my eye. I always assumed that I would not be able to appreciate modern art for its appearance, but the tranquil scene depicted in the painting really made me like the painting because it simply looked beautiful.
I also enjoyed one of the artifacts I found on the fourth floor. The Desk of John Ramage did not interest me due to its appearance, but rather the history behind it. John Ramage was an immigrant from Ireland who settled in Boston during the Revolutionary War Era. He married his first wife there only to ditch her to go to Canada due to his support for the British. He then married his second wife in Nova Scotia, but was chased out due to his bigotry and his first wife being discovered. After fleeing to New York, he married once again only to leave his 3rd wife like the rest for bad debts finally settling in Montreal. Although these facts do not resemble any groundbreaking historical facts, this story made me realize just how impersonal history may be sometimes. This rather more personal account of one individual's journey showed me just how complex history really is. There is just so much that textbooks leave out of their textbooks about history. And thanks to my trip to the NY Historical Society, I now understand this fact much more.
Walking into the Armory Exhibit, I was taken aback by the number of people in it. This did not take away from it in any way though. It was still a delightful and appreciative experience that I did learn a lot from. I enjoyed the setup of the exhibit; it guided me in a very intuitive and modern way following the chronological order of the movements, utilizing every nook and cranny of the small rooms. There was also a lady giving some sort of tour, which I did listen in on occasionally, and she was quite informative. I love the idea that the armory show’s purpose was to make modern art fashionable and surprise the American public. Jed Perl says in his article The Armory Show Made Modern Art Something You Love to Hate, “Perhaps one of the lessons to be drawn from the Armory Show is that there are different kinds of upheavals and sea changes in the arts, and that we would do well to make certain distinctions.” I completely agree and this was clearly exemplified in a highlight of the exhibit. Duchamp’s scandalous Nude Descending a Staircase was a spectacular piece that really defined cubism for me. I think it was amazing how Duchamp gave the public something they thought they knew but didn’t really. It kind of looks like someone cut up an actual image and just pieced it back together, not knowing how to properly do it. The movement in the piece and the boldness were really emphasized. Cubism was very radical and I can see why; it did ask whether the artist had to make something the viewer understand or whether the viewers had to understand what the artist was trying to get through.
ReplyDeleteOne piece of the permanent collection that I encountered on the first floor was that of the Topsy Turvy Doll. I thought it was so intriguing how the designer of the textile incorporated two characters of Harrier Beecher’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin. The highly controversial doll is double ended, with a woman of African descent on one side and one that has white skin on the other one. The lower half their dresses was the reversible piece that would cover the side of the undesired character. I thought it was fascinating that children would play with such a toy, giving certain characteristics, like that of a mammy since it did resemble one, to the black character and more respectable characteristics to the white character.
I love the idea of recreating an exhibit for its 100th anniversary. I thought the fact that the people of the New York Historical Society tracked the original paintings down and brought them all back together for a reunion of some sort was pretty cool. I really enjoyed looking at the oil paintings in the Armory Show; seeing the brush strokes on the canvas was pretty amazing. My favorite part of the show was the part about cubism. I thought it was funny that an exhibit of cubist paintings was called a "chamber of horrors." It seems ridiculous to see an art that terrible and scandalous but seeing how it's a different time period and how we've seen crazier things, it seems understandable. Nude Descending a Staircase is a classic example of the confusion and chaos of cubism. The tour guide even asked us to guess the subject's gender. From the article, it said that the critics called the "experimental art" "insane" which correlates to the quotes around the cubism exhibit: "The cubists and futurists are cousins to the anarchists in politics" and "The total destruction of the art and painting."
ReplyDeleteLike Alicia, I also found the Topsy Turvy Doll interesting. I also liked the pistols that Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton dueled each other with. They were bigger, bulkier, and in much better condition than I expected them to be in. I also found the 9/11 memorial pictures intriguing. One picture that caught my eye was one of the Burger King that was turned into a temporary NYPD headquarters. The letters "NYPD HQ" was spray-painted on and you could tell the sense of urgency there - they didn't have time to find a proper headquarters - they had to find a space that was available immediately and commandeer it.
I'm really happy I was able to go on the trip to the New York Historical Society and experience the art through the Armory Show. It was really interesting to see how the different kinds of art transitioned from unpopular to popular. The hallway that we entered on the main floor really set presented a clear picture of what was considered art before the armory show in New York. For the most part, every painting was a portrait of well-dressed, elegant people and their families. When we finally got to the Armory Show I was extremely impressed with how it was laid out. I think the circular order they took was helpful in seeing the full transition of the different artworks, and clearly made it easy to navigate. My favorite painting was definitely Circus, by George Bellows. It depicts a beautiful white horse in an arena full of people and I just could not get over how cool and detailed it was, ranging from the acrobats in the far corner to the nude men peering off a platform on the other corner. As we walked through the exhibit it was interesting to see the drastic differences from the American Art to the European abstract art. I personally favored the European art as a whole because it was colorful and up for interpretation. Duchamp's Nude Descending A Staircase can look just that to someone, but to another it may look like two men fighting or really anything. The ambiguity is definitely my favorite thing about the pieces of abstract art we were able to see. I really enjoy this museum because not only does it feature such cool exhibits like this one, but it also has interesting, recent things to look at like the 9/11 wall. But on top of everything I most enjoyed watching the film about New York. I love how the music and sound adds to the moving pictures and even though it really condenses the history of our city, it still manages to pack a punch.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed this museum much more than the Met because the lower amount of artifacts and exhibits allowed me to spend more time on each piece and consequently feel more involved and immersed in the history of the exhibits. My favorite piece in the intro exhibits was the Hamilton/Burr pistols... until I saw the placard that said that they were reproductions. I thought the exhibit detailing the historical backdrop for the Armory Show was well done since it gave a full picture of society's changing perception at the time, especially the section that showed Stravinsky's Rite of Spring (I believe it is very important to relate the music and art worlds). In the Armory Show itself, I mostly gravitated towards the more traditional paintings, as I am not typically a fan of modern art. On the other hand, Duchamp's Nude certainly looked a lot better up close than it did having seen pictures of it online and in art class freshman year. The painting seemed a lot less rectangular and more like a bunch of sketches of a woman in motion that Duchamp turned into an organic, abstract painting. However much I liked this painting, most of the other radical paintings were lost on me. On the fourth floor, I spent most of my time poring over the antique guns on display (if only I could afford one...). I also, like always, greatly enjoyed the marvelous and fantastic paintings of the Hudson River School. When we returned to the first floor to retrieve our bags and disband, I noticed a punch bowl (https://www.nyhistory.org/exhibitions/woolworth-bowl) present at the dinner celebrating the opening of the Woolworth Building. I really liked this piece because its costliness and function made it easy to imagine the scenery of the rest of the dinner party, and also personify those behind the construction of the Woolworth.
ReplyDeleteThe trip to the NYHS was truly enlightening and put into context the material we are currently learning in class. Before the actual armory show, I was taken aback by the plenitude of historically relevant artifacts and paintings that I could recognize from our studies this year.
ReplyDeleteI definitely got the most of the experience while looking around in the Gilded Age Portraits of America section; seeing the ideals of the wealthiest and most powerful figures of the time provided unique insight into the various motivations and desires in American society. With most of the portraits came a certain aura, a certain style that the portrayed subjects wished to emanate. The portrait of James Hazen Hyde (1876-1959) was a real knee-slapper, showing the twisted nature of Gilded Age superciliousness. Why one would wish to display themselves in such a manner is beyond me, but the portrait was nevertheless interesting and revealing. It exemplified the dominating zeitgeist of the wealthiest Americans at the time through wispy brush strokes and a muted color scheme. The brownish palette of the portrait cast the subject matter and background in different lights, but maintained order aesthetically, with no particular detail standing out. Rather, the lighter shades used to paint Hyde's figure provide the egotistical focus of the painting.
In the Armory Show itself, I was taken aback by the shift in artistic style. Perhaps the most critically received painting at its own time in the gallery was Duchamp's Nude Descending A Staircase. The ambiguity of the figure, audacity of the subject matter in general, and blocky composition most likely had it labeled as ideologically heretical art for its time. As Mr. Sandler said, even President Theodore Roosevelt could not contemplate its value, if not as garbage. The impressionist styles clearly had not set in as psychologically appealing to most Americans at the time, probably stemming from our roots in Puritanism. Duchamp's subject matter would never have been welcome in the envisioned "City on a Hill" that would forever be a metaphor for America (the term was commonly used by Ronald Reagan in his presidency).
Coming to the New York Historical Society, I had no expectations as to what I was going to see. Having been to the bigger museums, I didn't know whether I was going to like what I would see. But now I can say without a doubt that the NYHS surpassed al my expectations. I can confidently say say that the NYHS for me, was just as good an experience as going to the MET.
ReplyDeleteI didn't have one piece of art that stood out to me. From the fire engine's door as the symbol of 9/11 to Duschamp's "Nude Descending a Staircase" and Matisse's " Blue Nude", they all represented different time periods in art and how New York played an indispensable role in portraying all these. However, if I do have to choose a piece, it has to be Duschamp's painting. Unlike my classmates, it took me some time to decipher the figure. Duchamp, who is known for his ready mades, did a splendid job in hiding the woman, leaving the viewer to try and figure it out. One particular comment that stood out from that was the critique of Kenyan Cox, who said the painting was " the total destruction of the art of paintings".
The New York Historical Society was quite an experience. I really felt like it gave an all encompassing view of New York while also giving us the opportunity to view rare artifacts which we wouldn't be able to see anywhere else. As Julian said, the context that we were able to see regarding what we are learning in class was truly enlightening while also giving us an even greater understanding of the history of New York since we could see everything in one place more or less. Personally I loved the cubism which was on display and felt like the boldness of color and shapes really represents the same boldness which New York is known for.
ReplyDeleteOne piece that really stood out to me was the montage on 9/11. At the time of the attacks I was living in close proximity to Ground Zero, and the wall of pictures and the fire door brought back a lot of memories and emotion. The movie at the end of the trip was also an incredible experience because it not only summarized so much of New York's history, but it brought out the pride that I have in being from New York but also depicted what an honor it is to live in this city and be part of such a cultural phenomenon.
All in all, I felt that NYHS was unique in that it was able to concentrate on a smaller amount of subjects than say the MET, yet was able to capture my attention equally if not better. It was a historically comprehensive exhibition, and showed why New York is the great city that it has come to be.
All in all the armory show and the New York historical society were unexpected gems. From start to finish, it was a joy. Unlike most art heavy museums I've been to before, the museum was sure to give as much context possible (which makes sense since it's a history museum). Mountains of St Remy, for example, could be easily recognized as an example of Van Gogh's impressionist style, a style commonly seen and thus un controversial to many modern viewers. But given the context of the armory show in 1913, viewers can realize what an upstart the painting really caused. Van Gogh felt that black and perfectly straight lines weren't found in nature so he's painting conveys this to the shock of the art world, making his work incredibly unpopular until after his death.
ReplyDeleteWhile I enjoyed the museum immensely I felt like it was rushed at some points. During the latter part of the tour after the film (which was awesome and went really well with everything we learned in class), it felt a lot more rushed. I remember specifically being near the end of the group staring at some paintings by the Hudson school, especially the ones by Durand like the Catskills. For some reason I really enjoyed looking at those landscapes, which I found odd since I usually find them landscapes a little repetitive. But these landscapes were very peaceful and soothing. The artifacts latter on like Sherman's death mask and the carriage were also very interesting. But I wished more time on these artifacts, more time to explore. But other than that, it was basically a perfect experience.
Previous to my visit, I had never really heard of the New York Historical Society. While I was on my way to the museum, I really didn’t know what to expect. When I first arrived at the museum, I was surprised at the impressive interior design, as well as the diversity of art that was on display. However, what I really enjoyed about the experience was how personal it was. For instance, the Gilded Age portraits in the Beauty’s Legacy exhibit were, unlikes places like the MET, not really watched under high security, so I was able to examine the portraits up front. Through the high quality portraits, I was able to see the importance of showing off wealth and power during the Gilded Age. Obviously, the Beauty’s Legacy wasn’t the only exhibit that interested me. Almost everyone above has mentioned this, but the banged up firetruck door also caught my eye, as well as the entire 9/11 exhibit. The Armory Show was also a highlight of my experience at the New York Historical Society, as I learned how much of an impact modern art can have in society. Overall, I definitely think that my 12 dollars were well spent, and I doubt that I’d be able to have as much of a personal experience as I did in the New York Historical Society.
ReplyDeleteThe NYHS definitely surpassed my expectations. While it is nothing compared to the Met and AMNH in size, it was dense in information and the exhibits were of high quality.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite exhibit on the first floor was the one of the Hamilton/Burr pistols, even if they were reproductions (as Eric noted). I feel that seeing artifacts from the events we learn about do help to put them in context and enrich our learning experience.
As far as the actual Armory show, I found that the most interesting were Blue Nude (Matisse) and Nude Descending a Staircase (Duchamp). While they did not seem too radical from a current point of view, the American paintings in the gallery did highlight why the two paintings mentioned above among other European works were called the "Chamber of Horrors". While the American section featured still lives and landscapes, their visible brushstrokes were nothing compared to Duchamp's Cubist style and Matisse's Fauvist one. "Nude Descending a Staircase" was described as resembling "an explosion in a shingles factory" and other miscellaneous objects by journalists; I could certainly see why. The woman's form was visible for a fleeting moment, and then seemed to dissolve into random shapes. Matisse's "Blue Nude" was not made the butt of jokes like Duchamps work, but received a more violent response, inciting riots and being burned in effigy. Compared to the more toned down paintings in the exhibits, the picture of a woman in the woods, shown with muscles instead of the usual softness in European nudes, was certainly a radical turn.
The museum over all was a great supplement to understanding the Gilded Age in America. I especially enjoyed the upper floor, with different artifacts such as furniture, sculptures, and weaponry on display.
Although I didn't go on the trip, I was lucky enough to visit it on my own time with Chris. Seeing the sculptures and paintings, we were especially intrigued by the Beauty's Legacy because of all the interesting stories each if the portraits portrayed. Walking into the room of the wealthy individuals, you really get a sense of the gilded age. With their extravagant outfits and wealthy lifestyle shown in the portraits, one easily gets a sense of individualism and displaying of wealth.we focused mainly on this exhibit and noticed that many of the portraits were of wealthy individuals with extraordinary events in their life. It seems as if they're legacy was very important to them, which is the reason why many of these were painted.
ReplyDeleteThis comment is about the 59 minute Sarah Fishko Podcast. Honestly, I found it to be very informative and interesting, however the music was not really to my taste though I acknowledge that the music was creative, dramatic, and ingenious. I felt like some specific pieces of information were simply hilarious such as excerpts from past recorded interviews with Duchamp.
ReplyDeleteHonestly I do not understand how anyone can hate Duchamp, he was a mad genius. Even at the NY Historical Society I could see that Duchamp’s “Nude Descending a Staircase No.2” was the product of genius. Roosevelt may have called that artwork to be misshapen and repellent, however I believe that Roosevelt had the mindset that artists should paint in a way that conforms to the viewer’s perspective and not the other way around, where viewer interpret the artist’s painting. Honestly, Duchamp is one of the few artists that I can remember from art appreciation. His so called, “Fountain” (seriously, I have never forgot about this ever) had me laughing for a good amount of time, along with his other ready-mades that were everyday objects with his signature on them. I did not like how the podcast called him a Deskiller, which involved someone not drawing lines. I believe it sounds very derogatory and is an insult to his genius.
The podcast taught me a lot about the background of the Armory show. Young and upcoming artists were, in some sense, enraged by the incompetence of the Academy which regulated all traditional forms of artwork. Therefore, 5 artists decided to go to Europe, brought back to New York 1000s of paintings, and then displayed these paintings in octagonal divided sections in the newly build Armory at Lexington and 25th Street. The reasons for the abstract form of artwork that broke traditional style, altered reality, and emphasized emotion and expression, was because of the surge of photography, which did what traditional art did but better. Cameras were becoming better at portraying visual details, a trait that traditional artists would focus on. Therefore to survive and thrive, many artists unleashed their ideas and broke out of traditional boundaries. Ironically, people today pay hundreds to get a portrait drawn by a street artist in Central Park, so in some sense, art has been bouncing back and forth, and not only making linear progression.
Many other interesting aspects of the podcast were the Schoenberg Concert, otherwise known as the Scandal Concert, where the audience was slapped in the face by the music and Schoenberg was nearly slapped in the face, literally, by the audience. Apparently this scandal caused many riots, all because Schoenberg wanted stripe down and expose the makings of music to the public, by evolving music and making something innovative.
I also learned that WWI started a year after the Armory show of 1913, which may lead to conclusion that radical breaks from tradition somehow caused a war, though the idea of that happening does not seem too farfetched since riots resulted from modernist concerts.
The podcast was informative but I think Fishko took way too many breaks in between and some of the information was just plain silly. I rate this podcast on a scale of Rebecca Black’s “Friday” to “Happy” by Pharrell Williams (in case you don’t know what these songs are, the former makes me want to punch my computer, the latter makes me really happy), as “The Lazy Song” By Bruno Mars, which makes me feel really lazy and sort of soothes me while being hilarious and genius.
Touring the NYHS was an amazing experience. While many of us were more accustomed to much larger museums such as the Met, the NYHS exhibits provided a great deal of contrast and admittedly, I might've enjoyed NYHS even more. The smaller area made the experience much more personal, and the artifacts seemed even more approachable. What I loved about the tour was the fact that we were exposed to the type of "normal" paintings that were expected to be seen before the 1913 Armory Show. Once we moved from the "normal" exhibit to the Armory Show recreation, it provided a stark contrast. The paintings exhibited at the Armory Show were immediately different. We went suddenly from formal portraits with dull colors and little variation between subjects within the portraits, to various kinds of paintings, use of different colors, and the introduction of much more avant garde types of works. I also really loved the fact that the NYHS provided an area where we were sort of "set" into the 1913 timeframe. We learned of the different kinds things that were happening during this time period - especially the innovations in industrial, social and even artistic field of 1913. The information provided a great background to sort of understand reasoning behind the innovations in art shown in the Armory Show. Matisse’s “Blue Nude” was especially eye-catching for me. For one, it was completely distinguishable from the rest of the artworks and very memorable. Whereas you would expect all nude paintings to be elegant, gorgeous and emphasizing of the beauty of the natural human body, the "Blue Nude" provided a stark contrast. It was as if all the colors that shouldn't be used for a nude painting, was used in this nude painting. It was grotesque, ugly and even almost evil. This painting evoked a lot of emotion within, not only me, but the rest of the group as we huddled around the painting, staring both in fear and admiration.
ReplyDeleteI felt that the hour long special Culture Shock 1913 featuring Sara Fishko was very interesting and related to the Armory Show exhibit. The podcast mentioned many of the art works seen in the Armory Show like Duchamp's Nude Descending a Staircase, however it focused on much more than just artworks and artists. The podcast focused on the entire 1913 year, and described all the events going on that were redefining the normality. The podcast stressed the difference in ideas between this new group of modernists and the old academic thinkers. While the new modernists stressed being new and finding new ways of expression, dying academic thinkers believed in keeping with tradition and the past. Like the Armory Show art works, the podcast also focused on new, radical things. One person focused in both was Duchamp, who after working with paints, began developing readymades.
ReplyDeleteI also liked how the Armory Show was mentioned in the podcast, as it was a culture shock in 1913. The podcast described the Armory Show, as a break from the normal, and a introduction to modern art in America. I got a better understanding from the podcast of the Armory Show, and I feel that it was worth hearing to supplement what was seen in the Armory Show.
I felt that the podcast was really interesting, and I feel that by listening to it after seeing artworks in the Armory Show, I was better able to understand the radical new nature and new ideas presented in the podcast.
Although I did not have the chance to go to the Armory Show recreation exhibit, I definitely enjoyed listening to the podcast, because it described the various types of new art that was beginning to surface America, such as abstract art, different styles of dancing, and alternative music. I was especially interested in the public reaction to all these new styles of art, because the podcast stressed how they were very different and thus many traditionalists were upset with how the art industry was going.
ReplyDeleteOne example, like Jack had referenced to, that I found particularly memorable was Duchamp's Nude Descending a Staircase No. 2, which was one of the most popular works during the Armory Show. Today, there would be no problems showing different types of abstract and modern art but in that time, other artists were shocked when they saw Duchamp's work of art and said that it was too Cubist and Futurist and condemned it.
As a result, the Armory Show was the start of an art revolution and represented a shift in generations and their theology, which was particularly stressed in the podcast. and
Unfortunately, over the break I was unable to to go visit the armory show at the New York Historical Society but the podcast has definitely motivated me to go visit the exhibit whenever I get the chance to. In 1913 the introduction of abstract art, fragmented music, and modernism really changed the culture of not only the United States, but of nations all around the world. I was very inspired by the fact that the Armory Show was created not by professionals but by a small group of artists with intelligence well ahead of their time.
ReplyDeleteI was very interested in not just how viewers interpreted Duchamp's Nude Descending a Staircase but also other works of abstract art. The podcast revealed that many people had mixed emotions towards this new form of art. I, personally, like the creativity that abstract art brings out within both the artist as well as the viewer. It is as if the artist were teaching others how to form their own art through interpretation of a certain piece of art. It was teaching without imposing.
The Armory Show which started off as a small project in a location not even meant for displaying art has forever transformed the definition of art. Art was no longer a photograph of reality but a description of the imagination.