Categories
We Recommend We Recommend

A Trip to the Moon at the Brooks

I hereby declare Thursday, July 2nd, national “dance around a statue of a wizard” day. And, no, this has absolutely nothing to do with Nathan Bedford Forrest. I’m referring to the closing images of Georges Méliès’ groundbreaking 1902 silent film A Trip to the Moon, which finds a bunch of happy Earthlings celebrating science, progress, and a narrow escape from alien bug men by dancing around a wizard fountain.

A Trip to the Moon, which gets a screening at the Brooks this week, moves at a breakneck pace. It begins with a parade of science wizards with tall pointy hats and great golden telescopes that vanish on command. They’ve assembled in a magnificent hall of science, lovely assistants in tow, to hear a fellow wizard’s plan for colonizing space. There’s dissent in the ranks, but it’s quickly squelched, and in an eyeblink, wizard robes and hats are replaced by frock coats and toppers. Factory smoke belches into the sky. An enormous gun is constructed. A hollow bullet is shot right into the eye of a smirking moon. The human payload is delivered. Cinema history is made. Visually speaking, we move from the Renaissance to the Industrial Revolution to the Space Race and beyond, all in about seven minutes. And that’s just the beginning.

Méliès started out as a stage magician, and he brought the mystery, drama, and wonder of a great stage show to every frame of his most famous film. He also brought a good deal of vaudeville glamor and silliness. Loosely based on Jules Verne’s science fiction novel From the Earth to the Moon, the 12-minute epic cost 10,000 francs and took four months to complete. It was only one of the 23 movies the cinematic wizard and grandfather of fantasy film and special effects would complete that year.

Animation aliens have always played a big role in computer gaming, and A Trip to the Moon is being screened in conjunction with the Brooks’ “Art of Video Games” exhibit.

Categories
Daily Photo Special Sections

kings of pastry

Categories
We Recommend We Recommend

Make It Snappy

On Saturday, August 16th, between 12:01 a.m. and 11:59 p.m., the Memphis Brooks Museum of Art is asking this city’s citizens of all ages, creeds, and colors to pick up their cameras and start shooting. The goal of “Day in the Life of Memphis” is to capture images of Memphis 2008.

“Day in the Life of Memphis” is the first time the museum has made such a large call for entries. The pictures, divided by age group and amateur and professional photographers, will be judged by a jury, and the winning images will be displayed online and at the museum from September 20th through November 2nd in a show titled “Memphis 8.16.08.” The project was created by the museum’s education department to spark community involvement around the upcoming exhibit “Photographs from the Memphis World, 1949-1964,” which includes pictures from the archives of the late African-American community newspaper Memphis World.

“Day in the Life” begins in the wee hours of August 16th, just as folks at the Candlelight Vigil are making their way through the grounds of Graceland commemorating the anniversary of Elvis’ death. It’s coincidence, according to project assistant Gracie Wright, who says the date was chosen to give the Brooks enough time to get ready for the opening.

Obvious images come to mind: the Pyramid, the bridge. “That’s fantastic, because that is Memphis,” Wright says. “But we’re hoping to get a diverse group of pictures. We’re hoping to get a picture of somebody’s grandma sitting on the porch or of somebody’s dog catching a Frisbee in Overton Park — any or all of that.”

The opening of “Memphis 8.16.08” on September 20th is also Memphis World Community Day, a free event featuring photography-inspired activities for the kids, live entertainment, a panel discussion, and more.

“Day in the Life of Memphis,” Saturday, August 16th, 12:01 a.m.-11:59 p.m. Deadline for Entry is Wednesday, August 27th. For more information or to download an application, go to brooksmuseum.org.

Categories
Cover Feature News

Printing Money:

“Don’t pay any attention to what they write about you.

Just measure it in inches.” Andy Warhol

David McCarthy stands in the downstairs gallery at the Memphis Brooks Museum of Art, nodding sympathetically at a wall full of oddly colored camouflage prints like a police psychic attempting to mentally bond with an object once touched by a murder victim.

“It’s hysterical,” he concludes, snickering a bit. While others might look at the wall and see only a bunch of crazy colored camo, McCarthy, an art history professor at Rhodes College, husband of Marina Pacini, the Brooks’ chief curator, and the author of Pop Art, a concise, generously illustrated tour through the Warhol era, sees another perfect example of the catty artist’s deadpan wit.

“This was also a way for Warhol to approach abstract expressionism,” McCarthy adds, which is a polite way of suggesting that Warhol’s outlandishly imagined camo samples aren’t merely outlandishly colored camo samples. They are also a shout-out to 1980s hip-hop culture and a dig at the self-absorbed romanticism of mid-century art stars such as Willem de Kooning and Jackson Pollock, neither of whom would greatly appreciate having their work compared to commercial hunting gear.

Warhol’s name has become synonymous with pop art, a visual art movement born in the 1950s and characterized by the appropriation of images and themes from comic books, print advertising, and other aspects of popular culture that would have previously been considered unfit subjects for a fine artist. According to McCarthy, this appropriation of vulgar imagery resulted in part because painters like Pollock and de Kooning so completely dominated their field many artists felt that abstraction was blocked to them.

“The whole point of camouflage is to blend in with your surroundings, right?” asks an amused McCarthy, who is teaming up with his wife to bring a little context to “The Prints of Andy Warhol (From A to B and Back Again),” a bright and bracing exhibition featuring 63 prints and five paintings on display at the Brooks through September 7th.

“There’s absolutely nothing about this camouflage that blends in,” he says.

“I never think that people die. They just go to department stores.”

— Andy Warhol

It’s been 20 years since Warhol, the bigwig of American pop, blew up his last silver balloon and floated off to shop with Elvis and Marilyn Monroe at the big department store in the sky. But even now, only a month away from what would have been the artist’s 80th birthday, it’s difficult to look at his cartoonish renderings of soup cans and movie stars without asking many of the same old questions: Was he America’s great visionary artist or simply one of its most colorful capitalists? Was he a prankster or a traditionalist struggling to civilize rude new materials and vulgar subject matter in the shadow of abstract expressionism? Or was he P.T. Barnum with a paint brush?

Flower, 1964, Founding Collection, The Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburgh

“The great thing about Warhol is that you never really know for sure,” Pacini says, standing next to her husband beneath one of Warhol’s aggressively red Elizabeth Taylor prints. But McCarthy offers yet another choice.

“Why can’t he be all of those things?” he asks, adding that it’s always difficult to turn to Warhol’s own commentary for answers.

“Whenever anybody asked Warhol, ‘Hey, where’s the meat?’ he always answered, ‘If you really want to know who I am, it’s all right there on the surface of the artwork.'”

Warhol wasn’t the first artist to sample images from Americana and consumer culture, yet his work is singularly iconic within the international pop art movement. McCarthy and Pacini agree that Warhol’s savvy pursuit of notoriety, combined with his uniquely American attitudes regarding art and commerce, is what set him apart from pop art peers like Roy Lichtenstein, James Rosenquist, and Tom Wesselmann, who all have work on display in “Pop Environment,” another exhibition currently on display at the Brooks.

“Instead of making just one painting, Warhol made prints,” McCarthy says. “That increased his market share. Then he diversified his portfolio by branching out and making films and promoting rock-and-roll music — and it didn’t hurt that the band he promoted was the Velvet Underground. He promoted the Warhol brand endlessly and hired a publicist in the 1960s so that his name would be in the media somewhere every week. And not just in stories about art. He might be on the society page, because he’s been at some party with a lot of celebrities. Suddenly Andy Warhol was the big name.”

$ (9), 1982, Founding Collection, The Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburgh

By contrast, acclaimed artists like Robert Rauschenberg and Jasper Johns both picked up commercial work designing department store windows but didn’t like talking about it. Warhol was never ashamed of his commercial work. From his earliest days as an illustrator in the mid-1950s, he was front and center as both a creative force and as a brand name. According to McCarthy, this is the thing that still rubs some people the wrong way.

“As a culture, we somehow want our art to exist outside of economics,” McCarthy says, setting up the artist’s paradox. “At the same time, we’re hard-wired because of our culture to immediately wonder what a piece of art is worth. So if we read in the paper that a painting by Francis Bacon just sold for $24.7 million, nobody cares what Bacon was about, because we now know a Bacon is worth $24.7 million.”

Camouflage, 1987, Founding Collection, The Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburgh

In addition to having a diversified portfolio and exceptional marketing instincts, Warhol knew how to build networks that reached to the heart of various cultural movements. Looking at one of Warhol’s famous flower prints — an appropriation of a Patricia Caulfield photograph from a 1964 issue of Modern Photography magazine — McCarthy remarks that it may be a kind of homage to New York’s Peace Eye Bookstore and other participants in the 1960s peace movement who were connected to Warhol by way of a vulgar anti-folk band called the Fugs.

Warhol, who left an estate variously valued between $100 million and $800 million, also extended his business analogy through his “factory,” McCarthy explains, referring to the storied 47th Street art studio Warhol kept from 1964 to 1968. “Only this factory would be powered by stars,” he adds. “The stars whose images he used, like Marilyn Monroe and Elizabeth Taylor, and also the ‘stars’ in his movies.”

Electric Chair, ca. 1978, Founding Collection, The Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburgh

“There’s a flip that happens,” Pacini says, referencing the big red print of Liz Taylor. “There’s a period where Andy is painting famous people. Then suddenly he’s as famous or more famous than the people who want him to do their portraits.

“There’s this great Warhol quote,” Pacini says, turning her attention to a smallish pink and red dollar-sign painting and paraphrasing Warhol: “‘People buy a $250,000 piece of art so they can hang it on the wall where other people will see it and know they have $250,000 to spend on a painting.’ Then Warhol asked, ‘Why don’t they just hang the $250,000 on the wall where people can see it?'”

“Being born is like being kidnapped and then sold into slavery. People are working every minute. The machinery is always going. Even when you sleep.” — Andy Warhol

Seeing a large sample of Warhol’s work can be confusing, because it’s so tempting to write him off as the superficial character he played. And then you stumble across one of his electric-chair prints or an ambulance disaster from his “Death and Disaster” series. You realize that in spite of his reputation, Warhol was actively engaging in many of the great cultural debates of the middle 20th century.

Campbells Soup I: Beef, 1968, Founding Collection, The Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburgh

In one of his more candid interviews from the early 1970s, Warhol even admitted to harboring political yearnings. When asked if he’d be a better president than Richard Nixon, the spacy wit known for answering reporters with comic non sequiturs became unusually animated and engaged.

“I sure would,” Warhol boasted. “The first thing I’d do is put carpet in the streets,” he said. “And money for everybody.”

Money for everybody. How radically populist. Suddenly his best-known artistic pronouncements all sounded like twisted campaign promises: Fifteen minutes of fame for everyone; Campbell’s soup and Coke for everyone.

“What’s great about this country is that America started the tradition where the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest,” Warhol once said.

“You can be watching TV and see Coca-Cola, and you know that the president drinks Coke, Liz Taylor drinks Coke, and just think, you can drink Coke, too. A Coke is a Coke and no amount of money can get you a better Coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking. All the Cokes are the same and all the Cokes are good. Liz Taylor knows it, the president knows it, the bum knows it, and you know it.”

“Maybe that’s his end-run around socialism,” McCarthy suggests, strolling past prints of Reagan, Mao, Lenin, and a bottle of Chanel No. 5. “He turns socialism into capitalism. Maybe it’s his way of saying that capitalism can transform any sort of resistance into money. And into a lifestyle.

“His really is the great Horatio Alger story,” McCarthy concludes, reminding us that Warhol, who grew up in Pittsburgh as the son of Eastern European immigrants, was a first-generation American and the son of a coal miner.

“He started with basically nothing,” McCarthy says, “and he completely redrew the map for what it means to be an American artist.”

Categories
We Recommend We Recommend

Snap, Crackle, Pop

“A good reason for being famous is so you can read all the big magazines and know everybody in all the stories,” wrote Pop Art innovator Andy Warhol in his book The Philosophy of Andy Warhol: (From A to B and Back Again).

Warhol was obsessed by fame. And fame, it would seem, was equally fascinated with Warhol. Few artists ever approach the level of wealth and recognition he knew in his lifetime. The artist’s shockingly unnatural-looking wig is instantly recognizable as are his infamous paintings of Campbell’s soup cans. His overplayed prognosis that in the future we’ll all be famous for 15 minutes evolved from gross cliché into unsettling prophesy in the wake of Internet sites such as YouTube and the rise of reality TV.

Warhol’s double obsessions with the concept of celebrity and the comic potential of trash will be on display when the Memphis Brooks Museum of Art opens the appropriately titled “The Prints of Andy Warhol: (From A to B and Back Again),” a survey of 63 screen prints and five paintings representing the artist’s most famous works. Think of it as a party where Marilyn Monroe and Jackie Kennedy share Coca-Colas, while Elizabeth Taylor chats with Chairman Mao over a nice tin of tomato soup, and Warhol stands enigmatically in the background (next to a cow) mumbling about how great everything is.

“The Prints of Andy Warhol: (From A to B and Back Again)” opens on Thursday, June 14th, and runs through September 7th at the memphis brooks museum of art. Admission is $7 for Adults, $6 for Seniors, and $3 for students.

Categories
News The Fly-By

Q&A: Kaywin Feldman

Kaywin Feldman was the youngest director ever hired to run the Memphis Brooks Museum of Art. Beginning January 2nd, Feldman will become the first female director of the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, one of the 10 largest museums in the country.

Though she’s not an artist herself, Feldman’s always been passionate about art. That led to studying art history and museum management at the University of London, where she received her master’s degree.

As director of the Brooks, Feldman was responsible for bringing in exhibits that would resonate with Memphis’ culturally diverse demographic. She also managed the museum’s staff, dealt with the business side of running the museum, and acquired pieces for the Brooks’ permanent collection. She’ll have similar duties at the Minneapolis Institute, but considering that the Brooks is much smaller than the Minneapolis museum, she’ll have her work cut out for her. — Bianca Phillips

Flyer: What do you anticipate your biggest challenges will be at the Minneapolis Institute of the Arts (MIA)?

Feldman: I’ll be running a much larger institution. Our staff at the Brooks is about 50, and the staff at MIA is 300. Our budget’s $5 million. Their budget’s $25 million. We have a 90,000-square-foot building. They have a 400,000-square-foot building. Their collection is 10 times our size.

Any challenges with being the first female director?

I think everyone’s pretty excited to have a female director, so I don’t think there’ll be any problems there.

As the Brooks’ youngest director, did you ever face any age discrimination?

I certainly wouldn’t call it discrimination, but there was definitely a period of skepticism. There’s always a period of that with any new director, but I think it was a little stronger given my age.

How did you decide which exhibits to bring to Memphis?

Because the Brooks shows a little bit of everything, we try to balance out an old masters exhibition with a contemporary art exhibition. We’re very committed to being an inclusive art museum by representing work by other cultures and African-American artists. We have to make sure every exhibition here balances those things.

What was your favorite exhibition at the Brooks?

The exhibition we brought in last fall, which was “Masterpieces from the Fitzwilliam Collection.” It was an English private collection that started in the 17th century, so it included Anthony van Dyck, George Stubbs, and Joshua Reynolds.

Do your preferences affect what exhibits you show?

No, they really don’t. We have to think so much about what will bring people into the museum, and that’s not always necessarily what I like.

Before you began at the brooks, the museum was often criticized for attracting a mostly white audience. Do you feel like you got a more culturally diverse group into the museum?

It’s certainly been a priority for our organization since the day I arrived. I do think we’ve made a difference. We’ve brought in exhibitions that reflect the community. We’ve brought significant numbers of works of art by African Americans to the collection. We’ve increased our African-American programming. We’ve seen results in attendance, as well as membership of the museum.

Which acquisitions for the Brooks’ permanent collection are you most proud of?

We bought a Dutch still-life painting from the 17th century by an artist named Roelof Koets. That’s a very fine Dutch picture. I’m very proud of the Nam June Paik sculpture in the rotunda. In general, I’m pleased with the way we’ve added to the collection of work by African-American artists and the photography collection.

Who will head up the Brooks in the interim?

Al Lyons. He’s on the board of trustees. It usually takes a year from the time the director announces they’re leaving before a new person arrives.

Categories
Art Art Feature

One for All

It’s all uphill for the peasant who carries a large load of sticks on his back and walks up a plowed field in the early-morning light. We can almost hear the crunch of the man’s feet crossing the frozen furrows and feel the biting cold penetrating his simple cotton jacket and britches in Camille Pissarro’s painting Hoarfrost at Ennery, which now hangs with 39 other groundbreaking works in Memphis Brooks Museum of Art’s exhibition, “Pissarro: Creating the Impressionist Landscape.”

“There’s no focus; the subject’s inconsequential; and the painting’s dingy and vile,” railed the critics when Hoarfrost at Ennery appeared in the “First Impressionist Exhibition” in Paris in 1874, but novelist and social reformer Emile Zola found Pissarro’s art powerful because of its “extreme concern for the truth.”

It is a fitting footnote to history that 70-plus years after the French Revolution, a self-taught outsider and social anarchist like Pissarro jumpstarted a revolution in art that successfully challenged the social, cultural, and aesthetic attitudes of the day. Curator Katherine Rothkopf’s beautifully nuanced show thoroughly acquaints us with this lesser-known painter whose innovative brushwork, iconoclastic subject matter, and mastery of atmosphere and light rival those of the more famous impressionists: Monet, Renoir, Degas, and Cezanne.

Disenchanted with social and religious as well as artistic hierarchies, Pissarro painted peasants as large as gentry and smokestacks as large as church steeples and found all people, all employment, all weather, all terrain worthy of his art.

Effect of Snow at L’Hermitage, Pontoise

In the evocative, ephemeral Banks of the Oise, Saint-Ouen-L’Aumône, a river flowing past smokestacks in the Paris suburbs reflects the fumes billowing up, blending with clouds in the sky. Homes and landscape are obscured by heavy snowfall in Effect of Snow at L’Hermitage, Pontoise. At the center of View of the Village of Louveciennes, the viewer’s attention is captured and held by thousands of dabs of color that look like brown summer grasses quivering with light.

While all the show’s paintings were created from 1864 to 1874 — the decade leading up to the Impressionists’ first exhibition — the video accompanying the artwork explores Pissarro’s childhood on the Caribbean Island of St. Thomas, Pissarro’s search for the new and unorthodox until his death in 1903 at the age of 73, the impact the Impressionists had on each other’s work, and how these upstart painters dramatically changed the way we look at art and life.

One stunning example of Pissarro’s command of the picture plane is his masterwork Côte des Jalais, Pontoise, with its descending/ascending perspectives. Point of view is plunged into a Paris suburb lining the floor of a valley far below. With a dramatic play of billowing gray clouds backlit by bright white light, the artist draws attention back up to the top of the canvas. An umber, then ochre, then deep-green field of crops covers the slopes of the valley. At the bend in an unpaved road, two strollers come into view. The road’s loose patchwork of dirt and grass fans out at the bottom of the painting, encompassing viewers and reminding us that we, too, are part of these ever-changing patterns of earth, atmosphere, color, and light.

“Pissarro: Creating the Impressionist Landscape” at the Memphis Brooks Museum of Art through January 6th