The Ugliness that is Surrealism

Where: Hirshhorn Museum

When: through Feb. 15, 2016

My apologies for the recent lack of blogging - Thanksgiving, work busy-ness and some family issues have taken up a lot of time and energy lately.  Now that the turkey and stuffing are nothing but rapidly disappearing leftovers, however, I'm back at my computer.

Of course, the fact that the first two shows I have to review are surrealist works at the Hirshhorn doesn't fill me with a keen desire to put fingers to keyboard.  "Marvelous Objects" is a survey of surrealist art and "Le 'NEW' Monocle" is a recent work inspired by surrealism.  Both of them left me shaking my head, thinking "Why does anyone want to come and look at this stuff?"  It's weird, but so is a lot of stuff that I like quite a bit.  I really puzzled over my negative reaction until I realized - it's all so ugly.  It's depressing and uninspiring.  It's a good thing I got a nice walk out of my trips to see these shows, as that was the only thing I got out of them.

Many famous names are on display in "Marvelous Objects," including Salvador Dali's "Aphrodisiac Jacket."  This was originally filled with actual green peppermint liqueur and visitors were encouraged to drink it.  I can see the complications from that policy, but a few stiff belts would have been welcome.  A piece called "Lobster Telephone" (I neglected to write down whose creation this was, and I just can't be bothered to look it up) was originally meant to be displayed with an actual lobster (deceased) which would decay and smell - I'm sure that's symbolic of something, but I don't want to be in a room with it.  Happily, the Hirshhorn's version has a plastic(?) lobster resting on a rotary dial phone.

The Washington Post reviewed this show and called it offensive to women, due to the many pieces that objectify and supposedly depict violence against females.  I'm as sensitive to objectification and violence as the next woman, but it was hard for me to summon up any offense, as the pieces were incomprehensible.

At the end of the show, there's a shadow box full of objects, and visitors are encouraged to make their own surrealist art.  Since my motto is, "if I can do it, it's not art," this served to validate my feeling that whatever this collection may be, a great artistic achievement it is not.

Shana Lutker is the artist behind the other show, which is part of the "Directions" series.  Apparently, our friends the surrealists, not content to make ugly pieces and feel alienated from society, would disagree with one another (about what exactly, I don't know) and occasionally, these disagreements would become violent.  Her three pieces are meant to represent three famous fistfights engaged in by surrealists; apparently, all that ugliness didn't do much to make them feel friendly towards their fellow man.

I can't really say this exhibit is either good or bad; it's just incomprehensible.  I dutifully read all the wall notes, hoping for some elucidation, but none was to be had.

Verdict: You know perfectly well I'm not going to recommend these shows.  Do yourself a favor and check out the Downtown Holiday Market at lunch time - many lovely crafts on display, and no fisticuffs!

When Once Isn't Enough

Where: National Gallery of Art

When: through February 7, 2016

Repetition is the name of the game in this exhibit of works from the renowned Los Angeles print workshop and publisher Gemini G.E.L. (Graphic Editions Limited).  Each work is a series of pieces, so you're seeing both the whole and  the sum of the parts.

This is the sort of show that I think will appeal to many visitors, as the type of art on display really runs the gamut.  I don't see how anyone could like everything, for the same reason.  The picture posted here is from the first room which has this Jasper Johns set of colorful numerals, along with a Roy Lichtenstein series of paintings of a bull.  I'm not a big fan of Johns, but I did like the Lichtenstein.  The first piece is a bull - clear and simple.  No need to scratch your head and ponder.  As the series progresses (or regresses, depending on your point of view), the bull becomes steadily more abstract, until, by the final piece, you could have no idea what it was unless you'd seen the whole set.  It gave me a greater appreciation of abstract act; it's not just random line and squiggles - it really is something.

I was far less impressed with the room of Ellsworth Kelly pieces - all just monochromatic shapes.  How is that different than painting your living room?  By my rule of "If I can do it, it's not art," this is definitely not art.

My favorite piece in the show was a David Hockney work called "Snow," part of his "Weather" series.  It's something that would be right at home at the Freer.  Snow covered mountain and tree branch - one expects a Chinese scholar to come out of the corner, on his way to visit a friend.  Lovely: spare, simple and restful to view.

Verdict: Worth a look - there's bound to be something that pleases you.

Civil Rights in Stamps

Where: National Postal Museum

When: through February 15, 2016

If you think you've seen every possible presentation of the history of African-Americans in the United States, think again. This exhibit tells the story of Black America with stamps and other pieces of postal memorabilia.  From the use of slaves to deliver messages, to the Black Heritage Stamp series, this show, easily managed in a lunch hour, gives you a new perspective on the odyssey that Americans of African descent have taken in the years that they have lived in the United States.

Exhibits include mail carried by slave messengers from one plantation to another, communications dating from the time of the Civil War and mail from the Civil Right era.  African-Americans honored on stamps include Booker T. Washington (whose stamp is pictured here), Marion Anderson (whose stamp is a lovely portrait) and W.E.B. DuBois (whose stamp features a double portrait), and their stamps, along with many others are on display.

Not shying away from the ugly aspects of history, a case with Ku Klux Klan materials is also part of the exhibit, including a hood and mask.  It was disturbing to see, and I realized I'd been very fortunate never to have seen one before.  My hope is never to see one again.

Verdict: A nicely done show, that probably won't get as much traffic as it deserves, tucked away off the Mall.

Robert Frank, not Anne

Where: National Gallery of Art

When: through February 7, 2016

The library has put up a new exhibit in the West Building on photobooks.  These are books in which the majority of the content is photographs, what I might have called coffee table books before realizing there's an even more specific descriptive phrase available.

My issue with the last couple of these library displays is my issue with this one as well.  There are no wall notes to explain what you're seeing.  You just walk into the room, look at some items in the display cases, and walk out very little the wiser, unless you knew something about the subject before you arrived.

Granted, there is a pamphlet available that offers a wealth of information on what you're seeing, and this time, I took one.  I didn't have an enormous amount of time the day I went to the gallery, so I didn't read it while looking at the items; I figured I'd just have a gander at it before writing this post.

It's a lot of information - perhaps more than I really wanted to know about photobooks, truth be told.  Setting aside my quibble with the length, the information is quite helpful.  I realize that I need to allow some more time for these little shows, so that I can read the pamphlet in situ - treat it as a sort of portable version of wall notes.

Interestingly enough, I saw a piece I recognized - William Eggleston's photograph of the tricycle outside a tract house - what I call the "Giant Trike."  There's also a copy of Lee Friedlander's "American Monument," which I feel like I've seen at American Art.  If you remember this show - tell me in the comments!

Oh, the post title is a reference to the name of the display, "Photobooks after Frank."  When I first read it, I thought they meant Anne Frank and couldn't figure out what she had to do with photography.

Verdict: Now that I've figured out how to see these little exhibits, I think I'll appreciate them more.