The Times, They Have a-Changed

Where: National Portrait Gallery

When: through October 30, 2016

I made a return trip to the Portrait Gallery this Wednesday and was able to see this photograph of Bob Dylan.  Taken by John Cohen in 1962, it pre-dates his transition to electric guitar.

I attended Dylan's concert this summer at Wolf Trap, and when I heard the news about his award, I e-mailed my husband and said, "Now you can say you've seen a Nobel Prize winner!"

The photograph is interesting; it has a triangular look to it, with the rug he's sitting on, the untrimmed guitar strings and the way he's sitting and playing.  I'd like to see more of Cohen's work.

Verdict: If you're at the Gallery, take a few minutes to see this photo.  Note the quick closing date!

Some Questions for the Portrait Gallery

Where: National Portrait Gallery

When: through October 16 & 30, 2016

I spent my museum-going time this week at the Portrait Gallery, which is located a block away from my office.  On Wednesday, I took a close look at this painting of the four female Supreme Court justices.  I've walked past it often in the three years it's been on display, but hadn't really taken the time to stop and examine it.

It's a very interesting painting - lots of windows.  There's the large window to the right, in which one can see many more windows, plus the mirror on the wall behind the justices.  In the reflection, there appears to be a door or window.   The painter, Nelson Shanks, drew on Dutch portraiture conventions, according to the wall notes; does this explain the windows?

Each portrait is very good individually, and they work well together.  That's an advantage over photography - everyone looks their best.  The notes also say that the setting is based on Supreme Court interiors and a courtyard.  Does this mean the location is real, or not?  Is this another example of the "view painting" - where the artist creates the location?

I'm sorry to see this painting leave the museum and am hoping that its owners will decide to give the piece to the Portrait Gallery at some point.  I'll be happy to have them back anytime. 

I returned to the Portrait Gallery on Friday, intending to see the "Recent Acquisitions" exhibit and the portrait of Arnold Palmer in the "In Memoriam" space.  And this is where my questions come up:  first of all, where's Arnie?  I walked all over the first floor, but couldn't locate him.  I think the show of jazz portraits has taken up the "In Memoriam" space, but in that case, don't list it on the website!  Weird.  It's supposed to be up until the end of the month, so I've got a little time.

My other question is about the recent acquisitions.  I don't think they're so recent.  I saw the Neil DeGrasse Tyson piece, which I've seen for a long time now.  Don't get me wrong: I'm a big Tyson fan and couldn't be happier that his portrait is in the collection, but it's not new.  Also, the painting of Hank Aaron is something I've seen before.  And those weren't the only familiar faces.  So what's up?  I had thought that these would be works acquired in the past six months, but perhaps it's more expansive than that?  Perhaps I just need to treat this not so much as an exhibit, but as a way to get a quick look at things that are new-ish.

Verdict: Portrait Gallery is always worth a look, and it's close by, so even if it's just a walk around, it's a nice break in my day.

Lesbians in Black and White

Where: American Art Museum

When: through October 2, 2016

I first saw Romaine Brooks' work in the National Portrait Gallery's "Hide/Seek" exhibit, six years ago.  Hard to believe it's been so long since that show was generating controversy, but it's true.

Now Brooks has her own show, with lots of her paintings and drawings.  The paintings are mostly of her social circle in Europe and feature a muted color palette.  Black, white and gray, with the occasional flash of color, is what's on offer.  She blurs the lines of gender, picturing women in men's clothing.

Later in her career, she focused her attention on drawing, and her pieces are heavily influence by the surrealist movement.  They focus on themes of captivity and entanglement.

Brooks was independently wealthy, which meant she could choose her own subjects and live as she wished.  Who says money can't buy happiness?  It also meant that she didn't have to sell her pieces in order to make a living, so many important works were still in her possession when she died.  Some of those on display have not been seen in decades.

Verdict: Very fine show, even though black and white is not my favorite color combination.  An interesting person, living her own life and refusing to conform to society's ideas, as well as an excellent artist.

Who Says Women Don't Have a Sense of Humor?

Where: American History Museum

When: through October 3, 2016

The only thing better than a trip to see a museum exhibit is a trip to see a museum exhibit featuring a Muppet.  The one I saw recently had memorabilia from Carol Burnett and Phyllis Diller, including Burnett's famous charwoman costume and Diller's fright wig.  I remember watching The Carol Burnett Show when I was a kid - those skits where Harvey Korman would crack up were a riot.  The charwoman was more than a comic figure; she was an intelligent person, hampered by her class and her gender. 

Diller made an entire career out of skewering the ideal vision of the wife and mother.  No happy homemaker she!  She pulled back the curtain and revealed that things were not all "Ozzie and Harriet" on the home front.

The best part of the display for me though, was Miss Piggy.  She's a hand and rod puppet, but she's so much more!  She's a high-maintenance diva, unafraid to speak her mind since she was first introduced in 1974.  In June 2015, she won an award from the Elizabeth A. Sackler Center for Feminist Art.  Of course, I had to look up Elizabeth A. Sackler, and it turns out she's a public historian and activist, as well as the daughter of Arthur Sackler, of the Sackler Gallery.  A juxtaposition of two of my favorite things: the Sackler and the Muppets.

Verdict: I hope you got a chance to see this fun display.

Robert of the Ruins

Where: National Gallery of Art

When: through October 2, 2016

This exhibit has now closed, so I hope you got a chance to see it before it left the National Gallery.  I was unfamiliar with Hubert Robert before seeing this show, and I'm glad I have become acquainted with his work.

He painted pictures that juxtapose the ancient with the modern (or what was modern when he pained it, in the 1700s and early 1800s).  His work is of ancient ruins, populated with people going about their everyday business.  His works were known as cappriccios, puzzles to be solved.  He would put buildings together in a work that were not anywhere near each other in real life.  So the viewer must determine what is real?  And what is from Robert's imagination?  I was reminded of the "view paintings" of Venice I saw in a show several years ago.  They were often the view you wish you had seen in Venice, rather than the view that actually exists.

Unlike the romantic idea of the starving artist, living in a garret, refusing to compromise his vision for mere money, Robert was a bon vivant.  He painted for the elites of the day and lived very well himself.

Robert was also a chronicler of architectural change in Paris; I was reminded of the Marville show several years ago, which also detailed changes in the city.  It made me realize that Paris is always undergoing renovations.  Robert showed both those buildings going up and those being torn down - the latter becoming ruins for future everyday people to conduct their business around.

Verdict: An interesting show about a painter that I knew nothing about beforehand.  Great to expand my knowledge of art history.

Rockin' Around the Clock

Where: Hirshhorn Museum

When: through October 2, 2016

Bettina Pousttchi's large installation, World Time Clock, which covers the third floor inside ring of the concrete donut, is a reflection on space and time.  As you can see from the picture, images of clocks from around the world, all showing approximately the same time (1:55 pm), are hung on the wall.  This means the viewer's walk around the space is an international journey that requires no travel and a way to stop time without destroying the universe.

This is the international debut of the artwork, which is fitting, considering that the 1884 conference establishing the prime meridian and the international time zones we all use today was held here in DC.  Much as it pains me to say it, the donut is a great venue for this installation, precisely for its circular shape.  You feel as if you're traveling around a clock as you move through, and I don't think a rectangular space would have been as effective.

As I looked at the various clock faces, I was struck by how similar they were: round, divided into twelve sections, numbers of various sorts to denote the sections, two hands - there is a human desire to mark time that transcends geography or culture.  I was reminded of the advertisement (is it for Apple?) with the Maya Angelou voice-over: "We are more alike, my friends, than we are unalike." 

Two other observations while at the donut: a man posing for a photo in front of Big Man, in a "Big Man" pose, happily not adopting the sculpture's sartorial style (or lack thereof), and preparations for a new exhibit on the second floor, including scraping away the wall notes from the painted background - something I'd never seen before.  I would have stopped and watched the workers longer, but it seemed like staring.

Verdict: If you've got some time, stroll around the third floor.  This is good stuff, and how often do I say that about something at the Hirshhorn?

A Tale of Two Portraits

Where: National Portrait Gallery

When: Reagan: until March 28, 2016; Spacey: until mid-October 2016

Full disclosure: I didn't like Nancy Reagan.  I disliked her less than I disliked her husband, but both of them to me represent the worst of the 1980s: the excess, the disinterest in the less fortunate, the celebrity Presidency.  A pretty dreadful time, now that I think back on it.  Having said that, I went to see the Portrait Gallery's "in memoriam" display of a TIME magazine cover.  I have no beef with the museum putting up portraits of famous people who have died, whether I like them or not.  In fact, I'm surprised they didn't have a portrait of Scalia up - could it be they don't own one?  That seems unlikely.  But I digress...

I went to see the portrait and will offer my thoughts on it as a work of art, and a accurate depiction, setting aside my thoughts on Nancy Reagan as a person.  I thought it was a very fine piece.  It's easily identifiable as her - which can't be said for every portrait I've ever seen!  She's wearing her signature color, red, but is otherwise not depicted in a particularly flamboyant way.  No jewelry, the dress is a simple one, and the background is quite plain.  This is in keeping with her role in the Reagan administration: she's out front in a way, with her red dresses, but there's lots going on behind the scenes that you don't see.  She gave the appearance of a "traditional" First Lady - a wife and mother, concerned about saying no to drugs.  In fact, she had a far greater influence on the Presidency than what most people realized at the time.

Across the hall from Reagan is a portrait of the actor, Kevin Spacey as President Frank Underwood, from the Netflix series "House of Cards."  I've never seen the show, since I don't have a Netflix account (and I am too attached to the original BBC series to think that another adaptation is necessary).  Still, I know the story generally, and it's a good one.  The painting is interesting.  Spacey as Underwood is depicted as a "man in charge."  I noticed that there are blocks in the background, almost as if you're viewing him through a window - perhaps that has something to do with the show?  Good picture, I thought, but realize that without seeing the series, I'm at a bit of a disadvantage in reviewing it.

What I noticed was that the Underwood picture was garnering FAR more attention than the Reagan one.  Lots of people stopped by and many of them were taking selfies with the portrait.  No such adulation for poor Nancy.  Her celebrity has faded, only to be replaced by someone pretending to be the President.

Verdict: Go see these two pictures while they're both still up - it's interesting to see which garners greater notice.