Skip to main content

A Visit to the De Young Museum

I think that if I didn't live in Chicago, I would live in San Francisco (if I was richer, of course).

Another reason to add to the long list of things that would entice me here is the De Young museum, the one in the Golden Gate park that had the redesign by Herzog and De Meuron a few years ago. This is my third visit to SF, but my first to this area. The museum is, quite frankly, outstanding. I love the building, I loved the current exhibitions (one of which I will be reviewing for Hyperallergic), and I loved the permanent collection.

Instead of showing whole pictures, here are the details of some paintings that caught my attention.


A Willem de Kooning from 1977. What I notice: the dragged paint (squeegee, maybe), the collaged paint (he liked to press newspapers against the surface and then drag), the brushwork with a 1 inch brush, and then that heavy impasto that has crackled over the decades as it dried. A collection of mark making, his entire process displayed in a few square inches.


Same idea with a Diebenkorn. Thin paint, thick paint. Glaze and scumble. Quick areas and slow areas. Lines and dabbed points of paint. Aqua blue, blue, yellow, purple, more or less within the same tonal scale. A real painter at work.


But also a Diebenkorn from the early 1950s, paint thinned with turps to make pale stains on the canvasm slightly thicker splodges of paint with a round point brush, and then these lines that meander and drop and end in emphatic pressure of the brush.


Picasso, from the Willam S. Paley collection. Immense variety of mark making. A quarter inch brush, Picasso's favourite during his Cubist period, making well chosen and varied strokes in one direction and another, in grey, ochre, black, and white, pure paint straight from the tube, ending with thinned black paint and a pointed brush for details of tassels, the odds and ends of furniture.



What do you think? If you can identify the painter, I will send you one of my prints.  If you can identify the painter AND the painting, I will send you two of my prints.

Comments

  1. Hmm, if this is supposed to be a guessing game, should you have maybe not taken a picture of Matisse's signature? :) A little internet searching reveals the painting, but since I didn't know it straight off, I'll see if someone else can guess it.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

On my 300th blog post

Crikey!

It's my 300th blog post. And I seem to remember that in my 200th blog post I said that I would start quoting from John Ruskin's "Praeterita", after which this blog was named. Well, better late then never, so quotation number 2 is below.

First, though, some thoughts on this blog and blogging in general. I started Praeterita at the end of last year after reading a book by an art-marketing guru called Alyson Stansfield that recommended it as a means for artists to publicise their work better. But from the start I thought it would be more interesting to talk in a discursive way about my wider interest in art, and artists, and the history of art. After a desultory beginning where I only posted once a week, my blogging habit has now grown to the point where I am posting sometimes twice a day, and more than 45 times per month (helped enormously by the Blogger feature that lets you save blog posts with a post-dated timestamp, so that you can put posts in the bank to …

My worst open studio

Most open studios are notable for nothing really happening. You sit there waiting for people to come into your studio, eat all your nibbles and guzzle the free drink, and then leave after a cursory glance at your work. Usually, the worst thing that happens is that you get stuck in a boring conversation with a dull person,

But there was one time a few years ago when I got into one of these conversations, and quite quickly the person I was talking to started to make homophobic remarks about another artist in the building. After a few minutes, I decided I'd had enough and asked him to leave. He seemed genuinely surprised that I had any objection to what he was saying, which in retrospect makes me even angrier if he thought he had a sympathetic ear.

He asked me why, and I told him I didn't like people talking that way, and I said: "This conversation ended 30 seconds ago." So he left.

So, nothing dramatic like Jackson Pollock getting drunk in a fancy New York apartment a…

Van Gogh on Degas

From a letter dated July 31, 1888:
“Why do you say Degas can’t get it up properly? Degas lives like some petty lawyer and doesn’t like women, knowing very well that if he did like them and bedded them frequently, he’d go to seed and be in no position to paint any longer. The very reason why Degas’s painting is virile and impersonal is that he has resigned himself to being nothing more than a petty lawyer with a horror of kicking over the traces. He observes human animals who are stronger than him screwing and f—ing away and he paints them so well for the very reason that he isn’t all that keen on it himself.”
Subscribe to Praeterita in a reader