“Link”

October 7, 2018

triple small

In the Flatiron Plaza, by Jorge Palacios.  Bigger image here.

The Noguchi Museum in Queens is featuring Palacios’ work right now.  The “Red Cube,” one of Noguchi’s most famous public sculptures is not, of course, a cube.

Advertisements

Jorge Palacios

September 8, 2018

jorge-palacios-sculpture-flatiron-new-york

We take a break now from our finger gazing to talk about Jorge Palacios, a sculptor in wood who is now being shown at the Noguchi Museum, a favorite spot of mine.  I read about his big piece, Link, in the Flatiron Plaza, and went to see it.

Jorge-Palacios-Link-photomontage-1-horizontal972x668

When I got there on a beautiful day like the one in the images above, there was a man scrubbing the piece clean.

I talked to him a bit in halting English and my halting Spanish.  He remarked that the piece gets lots of scuff marks from people’s shoes!  I asked him if it is hollow, it is, and if I could bang on it, I did.  When I got home, I did some reading about the artist and the exhibit at the Noguchi and it seemed to me that the guy looked a little like the  artist, didn’t he?  He was a lot more friendly than his picture makes him seem!

jorge-palacios.jpg

Yesterday, I went to the Noguchi to see the exhibit of his work, including this one:

download

Wandering about the exhibit, examining the installations and putting in more lights, was the same “workman” I’d seen cleaning the piece in Manhattan.  It dawned on me that this unassuming man was the artist, and I had a pleasant chat with him – I reminded him of our previous encounter.  An amusing bit of serendipity, and I had him sign a copy of a monograph that I bought in the museum shop.  🙂

When I was leaving the museum, I chatted with the admissions person about my encounters, and he chuckled:  “Yes, he’s a very hands-on type of guy.”


Lightning Strikes Twice!

July 15, 2018

4AA8D160-4F01-4EDF-BAAB-EC101F789A60

This painting is on display in the Metropolitan Museum of Art as part of the “Painted in Mexico” exhibition that originated in Los Angeles.  Jesus displays his “carnal” heart – a very popular object of veneration at this time – while a personification of the Church uses the Eucharist to send a beam of light to illuminate a bible.  I like how the beam is not reflected from the pages, but is instead transformed into jagged lightning bolts that strike dead the enemies of the church (and the Jesuits, who supported the cult of the sacred heart against its opposition.)

The image of Jesus is a direct adaptation of this earlier, less complex picture.

K8108

The sacred heart, representations of which originated in the middle ages, was at first shown iconographically, i.e. as a stylized heart shape, but eventually become anatomically correct.  Not quite clear on whether this is a bleeding heart…

B1328337-FA08-478F-9A14-EE7B7DE625BB

Up on the roof, there is a different, more ironic sort of veneration going on.A70A693E-A4E8-446D-9FA5-564D485B6FAC

 


James Ensor

March 21, 2018

@ the MoMa


First

December 30, 2017

0F6ACF43-C9F1-4ABC-8B1B-82FC45CB0725

Painted by the artist known as Duccio about seven hundred years ago, this could be considered the “Ur image” of Renaissance art: Vasari recognized it as such centuries later. I always visit it when I go to the Met.

I rather like this snap of the picture; very meta 🤓.  Picture of a picture that initiated the Western preoccupation with illusionary pictorial space. The parapet at the bottom edge is key, nicely heightened here, strangely, by the photograph’s flattening of the whole image.  Other pictures intrude into the picture of the picture.

The original frame is burned along the bottom by generations of devotional candles.

 


Pym and Me

March 5, 2015

pym_me

See Not to be Reproduced or Pym.


Serial Murder, and Me

February 23, 2015

Another Odd Couple

I don’t watch TV, an admission that usually meets with startled surprise from people I meet.  “You mean, you don’t have a TV?!”  I do have a TV, or what passes for one these days, i.e., a large flat-screen on which I watch Netflix mostly, generally on DVDs, but sometimes streaming.  I also admit to watching old Hawaii Five-0 shows while I exercise.  But television shows, TV series, no.

I have tried to watch a few series that have a lot of buzz around them:  I made it through three episodes of “Breaking Bad,” tried, Treme, and a few others. I just don’t like the form – it makes me think of The Sims.  Create a world, people it with characters, disturb it, watch what happens…  I prefer to have the sense of watching a story.  Something with a beginning, a middle, and an end, a dramatic arc.  So, I tried True Detective, and I like it!  It’s only eight episodes long (half the length of The Prisoner!)  Maybe the fact that it’s written by a novelist helps.  The whole point to a regular series is just to keep you watching, to keep the show going…for years, if you can.

I rather like Rust Cohle, and his worldview.  I’m down with his philosophy of mind, his dismissal of the fantasy of personhood.  Maybe he’s a David Hume fan too?  For some reason, his cogitations get him down, instead of bringing him joy.  Perhaps he needs to read Fontenelle:

“All this immense space which holds our sun and our planets will be merely a small piece of the universe? As many spaces as there are fixed stars? This confounds me — troubles me — terrifies me.”

“And as for me,” I answered, “this puts me at my ease.”

There are two sex-scenes in the first three episodes (as far as I’ve gotten to-date) that set me thinking.  The first shows Marty getting it on with his hottie from the DA’s office.  She’s naked, he’s not.  The second shows him doing the same with his wife; she’s naked, he’s not.  How come women get naked but not men, I asked my wife?  “Sexism,” she replied.  Not acceptable to show naked men on TV.  (I avoid the word “nude,” which I associate with art history.)  “Not that I want to see those guys with their clothes off, anyway,” she said.  Point taken.  But it emphasizes that it’s a man’s world we are seeing on the screen.

And what is the point of these scenes?  The first was to deepen Marty’s character: it was supposed to be a bit of a shock after hearing him go on about family values so much to anyone within hearing, and there was only a brief hint earlier of his philandering.  The second..?  My wife again:  “It was supposed to show that he was a tortured soul.”  To me, he just seems like a guy with a lot of deeply held and self-serving ideas.  But then, I’m partial to the philosopher of the pair who questions all…  And I guess the fact that his deeply held ideas aren’t helping him so much is part of the drama after all.

Overall, a higher order of television than I’m used to!