The past weekend I went to the museum. I will be returning on May 4th, I think, because the museum is open to guests at a discounted rate. Anyway, there was a particular exhibit that has been going on in 2013 that ended on April 21st, so I decided to go and see it – on the second to last day.
So, I am not really into Impressionism. Do not get me wrong – I am not saying I could produce anything better in any reasonable amount of time. However, if I had to pick a style to call my favorite, Impressionist art is not going to be at the tip of my tongue. Needless to say, I am not an uncultured buffoon and I did enjoy the visit.
The first piece I’d like to mention is a lesser known Monet. There are lots and lots of people who think of Monet as the father and forerunner of Impressionism. I cannot say I have an opinion on this. But I will say: everyone recognizes his water lilies. Also, I am so sick of his water lilies. Anyway, the museum had a lesser known piece called “Village Street” which was painted circa 1869.
Village Street – C. Monet; c. 1869
So, I looked at this piece and I want you to know I had to stifle my laugh. Look, we all know I’m very interested in science fiction/fantasy and I have a witty sense of humor. So I looked at this thing and I was like: “Yeah – a void-rift in the sky has opened up. And look – tearing off down the street in the distance are ring wraiths who came through the void-rift.” But no, go ahead, look at the painting and tell me it is really a tree and shadows of villagers in the distance. Uh-huh. (Please note the creepy face on the “sign.”)
There were some Marc Chagall pieces there. Chagall, if you don’t know, is of Russian-Jewish descent. Also, I think he is absolutely batshit out of his mind twisted crazy-pants. As a whole, I find his oeuvre to be the product of a disturbed and Xenos-filled mind. Anyway, I saw the below painting at the museum:
Flowers, Portrait of Lovers – M. Chagall
Like I said, I think Chagall is well….. a sick-twist… but I can also admit that this is one of his better pieces. This is “Portrait of Flowers with Lovers” – it’s one of a whole lot Chagall did in a series that have similar qualities. Close up, the bouquet is really well done.
The Matisse I saw (I feel like it was the only Matisse there?) was “The Palace Bell Isle” circa 1896. It is not one of the more recognizable Matisse paintings (are you as sick of “the Dance/Dancing” as I am?). In fact, it is hardly the cubist/Fauvism stuff. It is “Impressionistic,” I guess – if we’re being all technical and precise. I actually like this piece a lot. For about a year now, I’ve been trying to reproduce on canvas “Sunflowers in a Vase” – without great success. I need to finish that up.
The Palace, Belle Isle – H. Matisse
I think if I had to (you know, at gunpoint or something) own a Matisse, this would be in my top choices. Why? I don’t know. Landscapes/waterscapes are good. And I guess this one is not overdone or opium-induced. I feel it is “realist-impressionist” in the sense that I can still see what’s being painted. Like looking at the scene on a sunshiny day – but without your eyeglasses on.
I saw a whole pile of other things. Including Degas – who needed to stop being a pervert obsessed with the ballet dancer girls – and some striking Henri-Edmond Cross paintings. However, since the exhibit was my main reason for going there – these are some highlights. There were lots of other interesting pieces. (I swear, btw, there was a painting of a golem picnic.) But since I am returning a few weekends from now, I think I’ll save up for another post. Overall, I enjoyed my time at the museum and had fun.