This photograph showcases a painting on the Berlin Wall titled “My God, Help me To Survive this Deadly Love” and it is a famous piece of graffiti by Dmitri Vrubel. The mural depicts a real-life moment from 1979 when the two Soviet leaders (USSR, & East Germany) kissed, which was a customary greeting to show a strong bond and affection between the communist leaders. This artist wanted to reflect the oppressive and strained nature of the Soviet-East German relationship, diguished as a partnership. This painting was painted shortly after the fall of the Berlin wall, symbolizing the end of the cold war; however, more modernly it captures the deep contradictions in political relationships, where the surface-level unity often hides the deeper forms of oppression and control. This artwork remains one of the most iconic symbols of Berlin and the reunification of Germany which, draws thousands of vistors today.

This photograph is protest art from the prohibition era. It was meant to show how government oppression would be met with resistance. It was extremely important as the prohibition era led to a surge of protest through the illegal sale of alcohol. It resonates now as government oppression is always a prevalent topic. It can also connect to the recent efforts for state governments to ban/unban the use of things like cannabis. The main discussions with those arguments also relate to the same points made during the prohibition era, to some extent.

My experience at the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum was not what I expected. I first researched the museum and saw it has twentieth-century modern and contemporary art. Truthfully, I do not know what that entails, but I assumed there would be some pretty landscape paintings I could look at and take a picture of. I could have chosen the common options of the MOMA, the Rubin, or the Whitney, but I wanted to visit a museum that many of my peers did not go to and discover something new.

Upon entering the museum, the first thing I noticed was the architecture of the building, which was more interesting than some of the displays and exhibits. From the outside, it looks like a rotunda, and inside of the museum, there was a spiral ramp rising to a domed skylight. Immediately, I noticed the words circling the ramp, and I felt uncomfortable by some of the phrases. The display, titled Light Line, was something the museum wanted the public to notice because it addresses modern-day political division over women’s rights, the violence of war, climate justice, etc. “The words invite thinking on biases and beliefs; the work is a challenge to power abused.” I understand how the words are implicitly fighting against abused power, but I experienced more discomfort and tension than discovering a new perspective. I realized that this display was meant to showcase how every aspect of our life is either being controlled, watched, or both. The question is who is pulling the strings and why do we as a society continue to let them dictate our lives? My main takeaway from this display was that life should be approached with caution because your actions are a source of information for someone else, like the government who is always listening and watching.

As I made my way up the ramp, I saw some oil paintings that provided a sense of peace and serenity when I looked at them. There were paintings of fruit and landscapes, and I was able to connect them to our discussion in class about Berger’s views on oil paintings. Some can argue that they were pained for monetary value, but at the time the painting was created, the artist could have been implying a message with their choice of subject. It’s up to us to decipher that message and offer a new perspective to art that was created over 100 years ago. What really excited me was that I saw paintings created by Vincent Van Gogh and Pablo Picasso. I’m familiar with these artists, so it’s always intriguing to see their other works that are not as common. It was good to have that change in emotion from disturbing to tranquility.

The exhibit that stood out to me the most was a four-wall display of former President Donald J. Trump’s tweets engraved on metal sheets. The metal sheets were arranged chronologically, starting with his tweets from the beginning of his presidency in January 2017. On the last wall, the metal sheets started to curve downwards and there was a pile of them on the floor. I took the time to read each tweet to understand Trump’s views when he was in office, and I found myself alternating between agreeing and disagreeing with his statements. The metal sheets on the floor were dated 2020, indicating the end of his presidency. This display was a political message conveying that his words were being censored and ignored by the time his presidency ended. I found it more interesting how a large number of people also stopped and read every tweet, regardless if they agreed or disagreed with his views.

Overall, this museum portrayed its exhibits in either a political, confusing, or vulgar manner. There was not that much art that I enjoyed looking at, but the select ones that I found were the ones that I spent more time analyzing and reading the attached blurb.

On Saturday (9/14) I very reluctantly visited the Banksy Museum on Canal Street since I was already heading to a dentist appointment three blocks away and knew I wouldn’t make it back to Snug Harbor in time for the Art Lab Open House. I hated the idea of paying $26 ($30 without student discount) for a ticket to an exhibit of replicas of artwork from an artist who is strictly anti-capitalist. This seems to be the majority opinion as the museum was EMPTY except for a family of French tourists. The museum curators seem to be operating on this motto stenciled on the wall:

The museum layout oddly reminded me of an IKEA with blue tape arrows on the floor guiding visitors through a maze of plaster, stucco walls, and brick wallpaper. Of course, the employee at the ticket counter made sure to inform me to follow the blue arrows all the way to the end at which I would find the gift shop (yayy 😑). 

There was an attempt at making each room give off the vibe of the setting in which certain pieces were located, such as with the telephone booth and the vinyl sticker manhole covers in the UK section of the exhibit, but the look didn’t seem to be maintained very well over the past few months that the museum has been open. 

Additionally, the “immersive” experience that the museum advertises is hindered by the yellow-and-black tape on the floor in front of each piece. Street art is made to be exposed to the elements, but here it is protected by a piece of tape that tells the viewer ‘do not touch,’ and creates a facade of this art being expensive and/or exclusive when they are really just replicas printed or painted on wallpaper.

Of course the small French children in the room with me did not seem to care for the tape and went ahead and touched the walls anyways…

This piece to me stood out as cheaply replicated with its strange spackle texture that is not present in the original (or on any wall; fr whose idea was this??). I like the message conveyed by the artwork, but I think my enjoyment of it visually is affected by this odd texture.

There were also minor spelling/grammatical errors in some of the plaques, such as this misspelling of “Neptune Avenue.”

The entire visit I couldn’t help but feel ashamed that I actually spent $26 on this. For a museum that not only betrays the original intent of the artist, but also profits off of their work. And for a museum that features replicas of Banksy’s many anti-capitalist works, you’d think that they would try to mask the irony better. This piece in particular was comically ironic considering the price shown is the exact same as the standard ticket price for this museum.

Although I left with an overall feeling that I had wasted my time and money, I did enjoy some of the little details such as the small graffiti rats scattered around the museum’s hallways and staircases. I thought they were cute and demonstrated the museum curators taking inspiration from Banksy rather than simply putting replicas up on the wall with a plaque. 

I do have to commend the museum for dedicating a section to Banksy’s work in Palestine and maintaining a sympathetic view of the Palestinian plight. They even recreated a room from The Walled Off Hotel in Bethlehem, which was designed and financed by Banksy and other artists to promote peace in the West Bank. While the real hotel is currently closed due to the escalating conflict, this recreation carries on its original message. I say this about this piece in particular and not other parts of the museum because the hotel room was the most immersive experience out of all the replicas I saw. It was clear that whoever designed this particular part of the exhibit cared that it looked like a real hotel room and that viewers understood Banksy’s intention by having an informational video play in the background as visitors looked around the room.

 

My initial impression of museums has always been negative so this wasn’t much different. I thought this would be just as boring as the other museums I have visited. Even though my visit didn’t start as I planned, I was definitely pleasantly surprised. I actually planned to visit the Rubin as I heard good things about it and it was the most convenient to get to. Unfortunately, that visit ended up being very disappointing. When I arrived I was greeted with locked doors, I had no idea the museum was closed on Mondays. I did however take a picture of the outside so that was nice;) I ended up taking a bit of a detour to the Whitney, which actually took me by surprise how much I enjoyed it. Despite it being more modern art it had some great pieces.

The first art piece that captured my attention was by Blythe Bohnen.

This was a unique piece that focused on the use of motion in order to capture a self portrait. It is strange because typically in a self portrait you are able to view every detail of the subject however this art piece is very up to interpretation. It portrays a moment in time that should show facial features of the subject but rather gives the viewers an unsettling and obstructed view of the portrait. There is no tell of who the person is but it feels like you can create a story based on the mere interpretation of their eyes. This piece pushes the viewer to imagine their own version of the self portrait as what is show is just a fraction of what it could be. Art is subjective, and just like John Berger believed, the camera can only capture so much in a moment of time. It made me understand that personal identity can be beyond a strict and motionless interpretation and rather a fluid and ever-evolving state. On the surface, I see a simple portrait, however upon further analysis I feel the complexity in the personality of the subject. The repetitive motion suggested to me the idea of cycles in life. Furthermore, the various phases of individuals lives that can’t be seen in a simple painting but this piece helped me see the complexity of the different phases of people’s lives which they continuously revisit and reinterpret with their identity. Overall, I was really drawn to this painting, however, it was odd since going in I had such a pessimistic view and the first painting already struck me. 

The next art piece was by Edward Hopper.

This painting was unique in its color. It was very bright and the strange addition of a clown drew me in. I was fascinated to learn what the original intent or the painting was because I had already made an interpretation on my own. The original purpose was an account of the artists experience in a Parisian art school where they combined numerous visits to different cafes and added their interpretation of the people around. To me, it touches on the divide in society today. Furthermore, the idea that there is always an outcast that sticks out like a sore thumb which is illustrated by the clown, while the people are clear critics for no apparent reason. It also touches on the idea of self awareness because how you see yourself may not always be the truth. The clown can portray that you are your worst enemy, and that not everyone is out to get you. It may always seem that you are the center of attention hence the portrayal of the clown in the center but it is foolish to think so. The piece made me feel a sense of coldness and isolation due to the high contrast of the colors. The calmer colors invoked a series of melancholy thoughts and contemplation that pushed a theme of emotional isolation which the subjects faces revealed. It seemed like even in a social setting everyone was so disconnected, much like the world today with advent of technology. Overall, there was nothing that I didn’t like in this piece, it was very complex and promoted deep thought. 

The next piece was also by Edward Hopper.

Initially, when I saw this painting, I walked right by it, however, upon second glance, I realize it was not much different than the paintings that we analyzed from John Berger’s book. I went back to see how the artist described this painting since much like the painting by Van Gogh that initially didn’t mean much without the words attached, this painting didn’t mean much without the words attached. After reading the purpose of the art piece it changed my perspective on it overall. The model in the painting was the artist’s wife who was 78 at the time of the creation of the work, however instead of painting, the realistic details, he created his everlasting idea of her from his memory. This open ended scene allows viewers to create a narrative of their own. This made me think of the quote from John Berger’s book about the difference of nakedness and nude. As the quote describes, you can be naked at all times, but it is only considered nude when you were viewed by others, I believe the artist wanted the viewers to understand the painting in that perspective. The use of light on the model pushes a theme of detachment from her environment which I interpreted as her careless persona. Yet I think this application of light does not idealize the woman’s isolation but rather exposes it. Her body language makes me think of a state of quiet contemplation and solitude. I feel like her nakedness goes beyond physical state but is also emotional and psychological all at once. To me, it felt like a raw depiction of a woman’s state and not one that is idealized.

The last piece of art was by Carmen Winant.

Although, I liked the message of the art piece it seemed too elementary to be considered art. Yes, the progression of the photographs was moving in the sense that it showed the evolution of the female reproductive rights but do I consider this art, no. Overall, this was not one of my favorite art pieces, the meaning was great but the portrayal not so much. There was no real deeper meaning that I could continue to analyze and that is something that I appreciate in most art pieces.

To conclude, my visit to The Whitney changed by view on most art museums as there can be art for everyone. Even though, museums are still not my favorite activity it is fun to analyze the deeper meaning of art pieces. I would visit the Whitney again with friends, I had a great time and all the exhibits were so unique.