Like It/ Don't Like It

             As an imaginary curator, I created an exhibit that reflects my likes and dislikes through selecting various artworks from the Metropolitan Museum of Art. These pieces include Impressionistic and Post-Impressionistic paintings of flowers, 19^th Century English dresses, and European decorative china. I envision my exhibition to have a soft, delicate touch with the walls painted in a light cream color to highlight the paintings that would be hung. The china would be openly displayed on a light rectangular chestnut table. The dresses would be draped delicately over dress wire forms. My favorite piece in my exhibit is Monet’s “Bridge over a Pond of Water Lilies.” The soft hues are applied prominently to the canvas that gives a soft and somber tone to the painting. I’m particularly fond of flowers and I chose to display Monet’s “Chrysanthemums,” Van Gogh’s “Oleanders,” and Fantin-Latour’s “Summer Flowers.” In essence, all of them exude a quiet, elegant beauty. There’s also elegance in the two English dresses. These dresses remind me of what the characters would wear in Pride and Prejudice and Jane Eyre, which happen to be a couple of my favorite novels. Teacups are a slight obsession of mine when it comes to collecting items. I searched through the museum’s website to see if they had any teacups in their collection, and I found two separate ones that I really like. Teacups are simple objects, yet they are functional and are pleasing aesthetically.

            While there are artworks I like, there are also a few I don’t like. Tom Friedman’s “Untitled” print resembles a drab piece of wallpaper. Emile Galle’s “Vase” is made out of glass but the dark color doesn’t compliment the design. I found this Roman “Wing Brooch” is simply unattractive with its plain jewel design. I also found a Greek statue, “Bronze foot in the form of a sphinx” that looks a bit frightening at a first glance. These pieces would not be featured in my exhibit.

Artworks I like:

Monet, Claude.

Bridge over a Pond of Water Lilies.

1899.

This artwork is on display in Gallery 819.

Monet, Claude.

Chrysanthemums.

1882.

This artwork is currently on display in Gallery 818.

Fantin-Latour, Henri.

Summer Flowers.

1880.

This artwork is currently on display in Gallery 824.

Van Gogh, Vincent.

Oleanders.

1888. 

This artwork is currently on display in Gallery 826.

Costume.

Evening dress.

1804-1805.

Not on display.

Wexler & Abraham.

Evening dress.

1880.

Not on display.

Sevres Manufactory.

Cup, Tea.

1840.

Not on display.

Barr, Flight and Barr.

Tea Cup and Saucer.

1807-1810.

Not on display.

Artworks I don't like:

Friedman, Tom.

Untitled.

1998.

This artwork is currently on display in Gallery 851.

Eames, Ray.

Cross Patch Textile.

1945.

Not on display.

American Textile.

Printed Piece.

1876.

Not on display.

Galle, Emile.

Vase.

1900.

This artwork is currently on display in Gallery 813.

Tiffany, Louis Comfort.

Vase.

1895-1910.

This artwork is currently on display in Gallery 774.

Roman metalwork.

Wing Brooch.

2nd Century

This artwork is currently on display in Gallery 301.

Roman ornament.

Belt Ornament.

4th Century.

This artwork is currently on display in Gallery 301.

Roman jewelry.

Earring.

4th Century.

Not on display.

Greek bronze.

Bronze foot in the form of a sphinx.

600 B.C.

This artwork is currently on display in Gallery 150.

Mesopotamian statue.

Standing male worshipper.

2900-2600 B.C.

This artwork is currently on display in Gallery 403.

Public Art Reaction

Malcolm MacDougall’s “Microscopic Landscape 2010” is a sculpture located in Union Square, just outside the entrance to the park. It’s big and red, and yet it fits in with the hustle and bustle dynamic of Union Square in Lower Manhattan. Since it is big, it commands attention. I noticed it immediately because of the size and color, and thought about the relevance of the placement. There must be a specific reason why the artist would want to display this outdoor installation in a busy location. Perhaps the artist’s intention for the sculpture is for people to stop in the middle of their busy day and notice the movement in the artwork. I noticed tourists and local pedestrians took the time to examine the sculpture. They took pictures of the pieces by itself and standing next to it. I thought it attracted a little too much attention because that particular area isn’t very big, there’s traffic zooming by really closely, and there was the crowd of people huddled by the artwork. If the sculpture were located in a less dense neighborhood like Gramercy, it most likely wouldn’t have the reception it does now. The sense of movement wouldn’t be parallel to a quieter neighborhood. The intention of the piece would be lost in translation. The purpose is to draw attention to the sculpture and notice the subtle movement.

Citation:
Malcolm D. MacDougall
"Microscopic Landscape 2010"
Metal
2010