Let's get one thing out of the way first...I thought the actual viewing of art was fantastic. The art chosen was interesting and engaging. The artists were top-notch, presenting work that you wouldn't expect, and haven't found, in Milwaukee any time recently.
The art itself was great...but once you thought about why it was all together, the problems started.
From the museum's website...
Paintings, sculptures, installations, photographs, video, and more made by African American artists since 1970 raise questions of what it means to be a contemporary artist and an African American today.and I think that was true, but only for a selection of the work, as the next sentence seems to admit...
Whether addressing issues of race, gender, sexuality, politics, or history—or seemingly remaining silent about them—these works offer powerful interpretations of cultural identity and artistic legacy.So in some ways the thesis seemed to be "Whether commenting on issues of race, gender, sexuality, politics, history or none of the above, because the artist is an african american, the work provides insight into what it's like to be an african american in the world today." which...ya know, could be considered kind of racist itself.
And here is my problem with the show...the collection is top-notch...but the narrative seems forced. In one room you have a piece made out of bails of cotton with obvious implications and a strong message (i apologize, i forgot the artists name)...in the previous room you have a piece by Jean Michel Basquiat that, as much as I love the artist, is a piece depicting his favorite jazz musician. Is the Basquiat commenting on culture? Yes. Race? possibly and probably to some degree...but is it commenting on it with the same purpose as the cotton bails? Is it even in the same universe?
Is the thesis of the show that wide-ranging and, if so, is there really a thesis other than "let's find a way to make an exhibit out of this fantastic collection."? If the theme is everything from race to lack-of-race to anything that race effects, is there a theme other than the artist's background, or in this case, race?
The second problem I had with the show was the continuing feeling that the wall texts were seeking to justify...even qualify the artists. They were trying to convince us that these artists were worth the museum show, as if the museum show itself wasn't proof enough. It was almost like they expected people to question the artists value and wrote texts to combat that. Again, in the case of the Basquiat, one text talked more about his relationship with Warhol than the actual piece in front of you, even going so far as to point out that he dated Madonna. They touch on the idea that Basquiat was interested in becoming art royalty in an art world that was traditionally white, which could connect back to the theme of the show, but the specific piece itself didn't exactly evoke that (and, in fact, seemed more aimed at the asian art market)...an instance where it seems that the artist and his background, not the work being shown, helps push the narrative.
The third problem I had was the title. I get it...they are simply "Americans" and don't need the qualifier....but then you walk into the show and the only theme throughout is race and reactions to it. It has seemed contradictory since the first time I read it. Almost like it's saying "Race doesn't matter...these are Americans...so here is a show about race and how it affects these artists."it just hasn't really made sense to me since the show was announced. I thought, at some point, maybe the title was showing the diversity of the term "American" and all the things the american experience can be...but they only explore one race, they specifically point out the race of the artists and that the show is exploring how being African American has effected these artists...if it's about the all-inclusiveness of the term "American" they ignore all other minorities...so that can't really be the reasoning, in my opinion.
If you've made it this far you probably will have a hard time believing that I actually enjoyed the show...but I really did. The artwork was great and seeing some of these artists could be a once in a lifetime type thing....I just thought they tried too hard to apply an overall theme and, in some instances, enforced stereotypes by insisting that all the work equally commented on the African American experience because of the artist's race.
It was just a bit confused. Half of me thought they were trying to point out how different the art was, to show the diversity being created by people of the same race and the other half thought they were trying to connect it all in it's focus, a focus which, while related, was not the same across the exhibit. Are they showing us a history of African American art, how it's connected and how it has changed through the years or simply showing work by African American artists? Is it about the race of the artist or the focus of the piece?
I couldn't tell and, worse, I don't know if it made the conversation about race more or less comfortable...but at least the art was good.
No comments:
Post a Comment