Natick Artists Open Studios Weekend is Saturday and Sunday October 17th and 18th from 11am to 5pm both days.
I will also be having a reception here at the studio at 6pm that Saturday. There will be lots to see, eat and drink and I hope to see you there.
Invites are ordered and will be here soon, so if you would like a personalized invitation, please let me know.
Though politics and religion are as dominant a theme in art as anything you can put up against them, they are still taboo in polite conversation. So, I will try and keep this rambling, reactionary soapbox rant focused on the art side of things.
For those that missed or (wisely) ignored this nothing of a story, here is a quick primer:
La Japonaise, Monet’s masterpiece featuring Camille in a blonde wig and beautiful kimono, has recently returned to Boston and the MFA. It is part of their permanent collection but has not seen the walls in many, many months because it was first being restored and then on loan to an exhibition in Japan. The piece itself was done as commentary, bordering on satire, of Western Europe’s brief obsession with Japanese culture in the late 19th century. Though the blonde wig and smiling face depict a conscious view of Orientalism at the time, it cannot be seen as too satirical considering that Monet’s home, to this day, has walls covered in Japanese woodblock prints.
During the paintings short stay in Japan, they had a good natured event to promote the museum and further the exposure to Western artwork and the impressionist movement. It was called Kimono Wednesdays, and viewers were encouraged to wear kimonos and have their pictures taken with the painting.
It was a huge success.
(A great example of the use of a kimono in western painting, by Gary David Hoffmann)
So when the painting returned to its home here in Boston, the MFA decided to continue the event, encouraging members and visitors and anyone else to come and enjoy this beautiful painting while wearing a kimono.
They had it on Wednesdays as well, which is also their free admission day. And that was their undoing.
I can’t imagine a mindset that wants so badly to be outraged and protest and stand for a cause but looks out at the world and thinks, damn, nothing going wrong here, guess I’ll manufacture an issue. I know, I know, that is not fair. It’s not about all the woes of the world, but their proximity and relevance to the outraged.
Faux outrage is the downfall of our society. There is so much to fix, but the self-serving and self-advancing bullshit causes of the young and uninformed muddies the water and gives empowerment to the enemies of progress and the people who think we live in an overly PC world. Sigh…
Anyway, a couple of protesters showed up.
Seriously, that’s it. About two people with signs and a couple of their friends who were there for moral support. Sadly, this wouldn’t have happened if they had Kimono Thursdays and the protesters had to pay $20 to get in.
(another piece by Hoffmann, incorporating many Japanese aesthetics)
And here is the real news: There will always be a few dummies. Always. They made the people uncomfortable and called the people who were there to see this masterpiece racist and claimed the museum was promoting Asian stereotypes. Fine, engage them in conversation (or don’t) and move on. I’m not mad at them. But then, the MFA, whose skin is apparently a lot thinner than the new linen backing the freshly restored painting, caved and cancelled the event.
And that’s my problem. And theirs.
This was a non-story, but the second they changed their plans, it was an admission of guilt and that there was some misdeed. And all the news organizations in the area picked up on it. The Globe has been running stories almost daily about it. Two protesters is not a story, but a museum admitting to prejudice absolutely is.
There will always be dummies. Always. Just do your best to ignore them.
And, for the record, if one culture looks to celebrate another, it is not racism. In fact, the appropriation of another culture is not racism, but actually the cure for racism. Exposure and experience is a good thing. If a restaurant in Tokyo does a Wednesday evening where they play Rock & Roll and encourage their patrons to wear blue jeans, it is not racism. It is not an attempt to reduce a culture to a costume.
Artists have been incorporating themes and aspects of other cultures and traditions since art was about smearing blood on walls and carving phallic stone monoliths. And it has helped bridge the gap of space and language far, far more than it has hurt.
(a corner of my own studio)
The MFA botched this one.
They made it a story and gave a megaphone to the whispering voice of dissent that was let, free of charge, into their beautiful gallery.
Then again, maybe there is no such thing as bad press. Maybe having this non-story in the paper each morning will spark interest in this beautiful piece of history. I have stood in front of this painting and admired it more times than I can count and even I feel energized to do so again.
As always, thanks for reading.
Ryan Black
Now, I don’t want to get off on a rant here….
Two things most people know about me and I don’t keep it much of a secret – I’m a bit of a lunatic when it comes to discussing film and art. “Passionate” would be an overly kind way of putting it. So, when the two subjects combine, I get excited to say the least.
Now, before I get into specifics, let me explain some history within that genre so you can better understand both my excitement and frustration. There are very few films about the subject of art that work, and it is a field that filmmakers avoid like the plague. Maybe with good reason, but I am optimistic that certain hurdles could be circumvented. Have you seen the most recent adaptation of Flemings’ Casino Royal, where James Bond spends a good chunk of the film playing poker? Now ask a professional poker player (or amateur or anyone with moderate knowledge of Texas Hold em’) what they thought of those scenes. That is the problem with making a good film about the art world. I’ve often said art is a language, filed with jargon and terminology that would be difficult to portray accurately without mammoth amounts of wasteful exposition. Because, like the Poker in Casino Royal, it would have to pander to the most uneducated and ignorant members of the audience. Thus, alienating your built in, target audience. My optimism on the subject stems from a belief that not every film has to be structured to fit within the understandings of the widest group of potential ticket consumers (there is an obesity joke there but I’m going to leave it alone).
Thus, you get half a dozen biopics about minor, 15 minutes of fame nobodies every month (there was a time in this great nation, when two movies about Joey Buttafuoco where competing with each other), an yet there has never been a major film depicting important historical figures like Monet or Cezanne.
In my mind, there are great films just waiting to be made about Rembrandts decent from fame and Royal following into poverty. About Monet’s major muses, the three women in his life that had the title of Madame Monet, each inspiring a new direction in his paintings. About Sargent’s exile from Paris after the Madame X scandal. About Jean Francois Millet and the Barbizon School. About Manet, Degas, Renoir and the rest of the group that would later be known as Impressionists shunning the Paris Salon. Etc, etc…
There was a very good film this past year about Turner, so there is still hope. But they are few and very far between.
This gets me to the angry part of my rant – The Woman in Gold.
Of all the films that could be made, it is all the more insulting that this is the one that gets the star treatment. And not because of its artistic subject either, as Gustav Klimt’s pencil drawings are some of my absolute favorite works within the medium. No, the reason this film gets me so fired up is that, having followed the story, I know the film is complete and utter bull.
If you want something closer to the truth, start with The Art of the Heist: Lady in Gold, and avoid this Hellen Miren staring glorification of the events. At least in that version, they present evidence and show both sides of the argument.
Here’s my take (spoilers to follow):
Did the court ultimately make the right decision, rewarding the 5 Klimt paintings to Maria Altmann and the other heirs that took the Austrian Government to court? Probably. But it is far from the David and Goliath story the film is trying to portray it as.
Quick history – The Klimt paintings, including the Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer, Gustav’s masterpiece and arguably one of the most important 20th century paintings in Europe, the Austrian Mona Lisa it has been called, were stolen by the Nazis during WW2. Along with, tragically, thousands of other priceless pieces of artwork that many people have spent decades tracking down. The subject and sitter of the painting passed away years before these events and in her will requested that the painting be left to The Austrian State Gallery, but it was owned by her husband and technically his to bequeath. In his will, he noted that he would honor his late wife’s request and donate the 5 Klimt paintings (the legality and binding nature of this has been much debated). He passed away in November of ‘45, and when the artwork was discovered years later, it was taken into possession by the museum and therefor owned by The Austrian Government. The argument is basically, given the Austrian Governments complicity and handling of the Nazis, the husband and owner would have amended his will had he still been in possession of the pieces. And, since he left his entire estate to his heirs which included Maria Altmann, they should be considered the true owners.
In the nineties when the case was brought up, the Austrian legal system was trying to become more transparent in dealing with reparations and healing from this very dark period, but still had limits and fees placed on certain aspects. One of which was legal fees of 1% of the value you are suing for. At the time, the Klimts were valued at $150 million dollars US, so Altmann and the other heirs would have had to pay $1.5 million to bring the case to court. To try and work with them, the Government lowered the fees for this one instance but they were still going to cost $300,000, which Altmann was unwilling to pay.
The painting re-titled Lady in Gold (sadly because, during wartime they did not want such an important piece to bare a Jewish name) was set to tour the world so that as many people as possible could enjoy it, and it came to the United Sates. Which, through a technicality, meant that Altmann could file a case without paying the fees required. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Altmann and the other heirs, and they were rewarded with the paintings.
Here is where, I’m guessing, the film ends. The reality of what comes after, even though the trailer of the film has touching moments where Altmann nostalgically speaks of her aunt and wants her portrait for her family, is that they never even accepted the paintings. They were shipped directly to sell at auction, where they combined to get roughly $325 million dollars and be placed into private hands. This was about an opportunity to make money. I don’t fault them for it, but it shouldn’t be celebrated and it has caused dozens of other cases with less merit to pop up and a general fear and unwillingness to put together these traveling exhibits for fear of foreign legal systems. Not to mention the loss for the public, who can no longer visit these works in there intended home.
Did the Austrian Government deserve to own these paintings? No. But did the museum and the public deserve to lose them? Also no.
This was a sad repercussion of a dark and terrible history.
The one thing I’m sure of, is there are an infinite amount of much more deserving true stories to be mined from the world of art and art history.
I’m glad the film is getting terrible reviews. I want there to be more films about art, but this is a rare one I will skip.
End of rant.
I recently told a couple artist friends of mine I wanted to try my hand at some three-dimensional artwork, namely, clay sculpture, and they gave me some sound advice:
Don’t be a dabbler.
I certainly agree with their point. Every painting and drawing an artist does should teach them and increase their skill and confidence. So, any distraction is a missed opportunity to become that much better. And, in an ideal world, that much more successful.
But it has always been my experience that trying and understanding new forms of art can only benefit whatever medium, genre and style you prefer. Painting in unforgiving watercolor makes me more confident in oil, abstract expressionism brings out emotion and betters the composition in representational works, etc, etc…
So call me a dabbler.
Ultimately, I’m not trying to be the best at one form or another. Art to me is about discovery, and sometimes that means trying different things and learning from my mistakes.
So, I built a work station at the studio and got myself all the necessary tools and clay.
I started with a particular favorite of mine, Sargent’s scandalous portrait best known as “Madame X”.
Remember when I said learn from my mistakes? Well, when removing the armature I broke the base, which then led to breaking the figure. Multiple times.
So I went back and decided to try and salvage/fix the cursed subject. Lots of research and trial and error later…
The Madame was (almost) her former self.
I had to replace the base that I broke, so I decided to use wood (birch) instead. But I had to also account for the broken bottom of the figure, which meant some carving. 
Then it was just a dowel and some shellac away from being ready for the fired piece.
Here she is after firing and some apoxy. 
And a dark base coat. 
Some Spanish Copper rub n’ Buff 
And finally a coat of triple-thick acrylic varnish. 
All to make a very elaborate business-card holder.
Ryan Black Art 