Monet, Manet, Nas and Jay-Z

Saturday night I went to First Night at the Brooklyn Museum, which is always a fun party, but maybe NOT the best night to REALLY see the art (or at least not if you show up at 10PM).  However, we did pass a really lovely late Claude Monet (Le Parlement, Effet de Soliel, 1903) and I had a pain in my heart when my friend said "Oh, a Monet!"

It's not that I don't have love for Monet, it's just that I always feel irked that Eduoard Manet,  his slightly older,  contemporary is often confused for, or forgotten because of Monet and his commercial success.  Part of my annoyance is because I just like Manet better, and I realized it's how vehement Nas fans feel when they hear and see Jay-Z all over the place.  Here is a Manet, (Olympia from 1863 at the Musee d'Orsay)- this sort of put him "on the map".  

Actually, to continue my hip-hop metaphor, just as Nas and Jay-Z were one time friends and collaborators, so were Manet and Monet. (later, like the two rappers, they became estranged over a "beef" about a novel by Emile Zola). Both of the artists were hugely influenced by Gustav Courbet, the so-called "Father of Impressionism".  Courbet was older and on the scene before either Manet or Monet were, acting a bit like a "Big Daddy Kane". He made a name for himself by painting realistic scenes of things like funerals and people at work, generally unfashionable subjects at the time. However, he did so in a pretty way and captured natural light in a way that inspired many. He was controversial, but it appealed to younger painters and started a movement.  (below, Funeral at Ornans,1849 by Courbet at the Musee d' Orsay in Paris)

Manet took Courbet's love of realism in subjects and ran with it.  He captured the grimy, edgy side of then modern Parisian life.  Like Nas, who is known for his lyrics as much as his subject matter, Manet also broke ground with his STYLE of painting as much as his subjects. He painted hookers (like Olympia),  barmaids, and controversial current events. His painting style was rough, loose, and far less polished than the accepted standards at the time.   It angered and provoked lovers of art.   (The Execution of Maximillian, Manet,  1863 The National Gallery)

Monet, on the other hand, really ran with the brighter side of things, in both subject matter and in style; in turn, Monet found acceptance and financial backing from a broader range audience. Like the commercially unstoppable Jay-Z, this isn't to say that Monet didn't have talent or substance (he had both), or even that he was never controversial (his painting style angered so many people, it coined the term Impressionism). However, Monet almost always restricted his subject matter to "flossy" topics like middle class ladies or gentle landscapes. Monet never shied away from being commercial, a label that Jay-Z got comfortable with early on. (below, La Promenade, la femme a l'ombrelle, 1875, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.; La Portail (soleil), 1892 (signed 1894), National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.).

Monet painted things that he knew people wanted to buy and he painted them well. So well, that to many doing more controversial, less successful work (aka, Haters), it seemed almost too easy.  Indeed, as his career went on, Monet selected subjects like the Haystacks and the lily pads that he could paint again and again and again, partly to satisfy the demand for his work.  Like a later Jay-Z album, each painting was solid in and of itself, but to a point, it was formula to fill a commercial need. 

To me, I don't think it's possible to love them both alike. I think you can enjoy them both, but the human appeal, the chords that their work strikes, are completely disparate.  It seems unnatural to me for someone not like one a little more than the other.  But then again, I don't think it's possible to love Illmatic and Reasonable Doubt equally either.

Why not start with Jeff Koons? I think we all know him....

If you watch the Today Show, you know Jeff Koons. He made the ginor-mous, 43 foot tall (from paws to ears) that was on the plaza back in 2000 and it probably made you smile! (as it should have. I mean, it's a friggin' 43' tall puppy made of flowers... the Terminator would have smiled!)

But, it's important to know that in addition to earning tons of money (at one time, circa 2007, the highest price at auction for any contemporary artwork - around 27 million), and being hugely accessible, Jeff Koons is WILDLY hated. Sort of like the way that anyone hates on Beyonce, or Anne Hathaway. The bigger you get, the harder they want to smack you down (Mo' Money, Mo' Problems).

The big thing about Mr. Koons, who has made works in paint, ceramic, bronze and more, is that he tends to speak to the part of the brain that US Weekly, or a visit to Granny's or a trip to the dinner does... but with a twist. It's normal, but better, and more interesting. Like eating at Cafeteria or the Conde Naste employee cafe vs. a regular lunchroom. Works like Michael Jackson and Bubbles (1988) showcase how he takes images that are super regular (and even simply fantastically enjoyable in their mindlessness- like Life & Style might be) and elevates them by putting in all of this tedious detail. The concept of how long it takes to construct Puppy, or cast Michael Jackson in Porcelein is insanely detailed and more tedious than such a frivolous topic SHOULD warrent... but that's sort of the point of art, right? It's not necessarily, neccessary?

So, the big thing to know is that all of this accessibility and commercial success has made Jeff Koons a loved and hated artist. A lot of people wonder if he's just about Kitsch for Kitsch sake? Like, is he like a current Robert DeNiro... where he just plays Robert DeNiro because it gets him a large paycheck? He finds something that works and makes it again, and again and again (the made "Puppy", in large form, at least 4 times). Or is Jeff Koons genuinely in love with making really pretty versions of American crap? Generally speaking, it's hard to say.... Whenever any artist gets popular, it's hard for them to keep "creating" stuff that is true to them, and not a reflection of the persona who got famous.... I think that's part of why why Kurt Cobain killed himself... matter of fact.

But, to be honest, there has to be more to Jeff Koons' than simply making the SIMPLE really pretty (and tedious). Last summer I went with a friend to the Met and saw a few of his new, large scale sculptures replicating, once again, Kitschy Mylar balloon art. Alone, they were so lovely and fun and funny. They enhanced the backdrop to my rooftop cocktail. If I were a hater, I'd love to say that they were fun because they were big, expensive versions of silly memories I have from being a kid in America. But, I'm not much of a hater..... And I think there's a bigger thing to Mr. Jeffy.... He loves things that are filled with Air, and life and that are transient and moving. (Like Michael's face. LOLOLOLOLOL!)

Seriously though, if you think about it, his newest work is all large scale balloon art... involving air and breath. Puppy involves this gorgeous and yet living, breathing and dying flowers. And then there are his older works.... things like Life Boat from 1985... a saving water device cast in heavy, heavy, not gonna save anyone bronze. But there is something fascinating about the idea of such heavy, heavy, big pieces involving life and air.

Wiki Mr. Koons and see what you think... If it just makes you smile, that's OK! If it makes you think, it's probably even better.

Really? An art blog?

A couple of years ago I went to visit a friend in London and he took me to the Tate for lunch. Afterwards, we went through the museum together. He's an attorney, but never really got into art much and I basically devoted my entire undergraduate time to the subject and the practice of art. I figured rather than try and explain why every piece was amazing, I'd just tell him cool factoids about the artists, or why a piece was valuable, or just why something wasn't "total crap" in an art historical context even if it seemed totally stupid to him.

When I was in college my professors would tell me that I had a real knack of explaining art in layman's terms. I don't know if that's totally true, but I do know that it's always seemed a shame that something lovely and emotionally connective was kept so mysteriously out of reach to the regular dude on the street.

So, here we go: Art, for Cocktails. Hoping to bring a little more pleasure to the art viewer in you! Mainly, I think I'll visit shows at museums and write about the artist and some of their work. But sometimes, I'll probably just babel about artists you "should know about" in straight shooter terms. Hope you'll enjoy!
BTW, the banner has the works of (top, l to r: Egon Schiele (who had a weird foot fetish and never painted them); Jan Van Eyke wedding portrait laden with sexual symbolism; Jackson Pollack; my personal favorite, Edouard Manet's Le Fifre; Robert Gober; the amazing Nan Goldin.... who really somehow made the sad, so gorgeous; Freida Kahlo's self portrait called Los Dos Freidas; Dorothea Lange who captured the dustbowl/ depression on film; Jean-Michel Baquiat's (another BK native/ part Puerto Rican like myself) statement against police brutality; a portrait by Paul Cezanne. He would make his sitters sit for hundreds of sessions until he got the image correct; Coco Fusco, performance artist and poet and one time Fort Greene resident.