First Tuesdays–Dale Chihuly Discussion
Lisa, Mark and I (Lauren) had a great adventure last Tuesday as we tromped through the Dale Chihuly exhibition which is now at the De Young Museum in San Francisco. It provoked a great deal of thought on my end and I am still digesting what I saw and experienced while I was there.
Here is a video of our adventure.
I also want to include some quotes from Art Review: Chihuly at the De Young, by Kenneth Baker from July 5, 2008 in the SF Chronicle.
“Perhaps dreamy color, glossy surfaces and flamboyant design – the signal qualities of Chihuly’s work – should be enough. But in a culture where only intellectual content still distinguishes art from knickknacks, they are not.”
“Educated viewers cannot look for long at Chihuly’s work without wishing there were something to think about. So they think about something else. The capacity to hold our attention, in the moment or in reflection later, is a mark of significant art in an era when mass media work hard to abbreviate attention spans so as to cut costs and decapitate questions.”
“The history of art is a history of ideas, not just of valuable property. Chihuly has no place in it, and the de Young disserves its public by pretending that he does.”
Opinions?
Thoughts?
Questions?
Answers?
Tell us what you think, feel, etc…
6 Comments
Lauren Odell Usher
It is pretty interesting to me that Chihuly received a “bad” review. I believe Kenneth Baker was alluding to Chihuly creating his own celebrity status and sort of creating his own lime-light without really stating it–and I don’t think Baker believes art should exist in that fashion. What may have bothered him the most was the lack of the “humbled artist” which was certainly not present in this exhibition.
Lauren Odell Usher
Here is something else to consider. Chihuly has been called an environmental artist (because his glass sculptures are sometimes shown outside). Do others agree with this thought? Is Chihuly an environmental artist?
Mark Lindsay
I felt the Baker’s criticisms were valid but quite a bit too harsh. To imply that the museum was being badly run for installing this show is just mean-spirited. I’ve never been a Kenneth Baker fan. He seems totally biased towards minimalism. I wish he’d apply his minimalist standards to his own bombastic writing style.
Considering the amount of energy (greenhouse gasses) required to blow glass, it seems inappropriate to label glass art as “environmental.” I remember when being at RIT and one could here the glass ovens burning fuel at all hours of the day and night. They never shut them down. That’s a LOT of energy being consumed. I might call Chihuly’s work “nature-inspired” or “organic in form” but not “environmental”.
elizabeth benson
i’m yet to see the show–and kenneth baker has been good to me in the days when i held Artescape Studios and he reviewed us favorably a number of times–but i am a chihuly fan and hope, one day, to own a piece–
i remember catching my first glimpse of his work at san jose’s museum of modern art and later at the V&A in London–and i remember vowing to want a piece in my collection–grandiose, i know. i don’t love his reputation as art factory–but i do love the idea that glass blowers get paid to blow his glass. i don’t love that he doesn’t credit his entourage–but i understand that the work that gets created serves a single artist’s vision: his. this is a similar criticism of judy chicago and her dinner party–a piece fashioned by the hands of over 400 women, but serving the vision of one artist. it’s tricky–this grandiosity thing. scale requires help. grandiose scales require lots of willing participants. pyramids. stone circles. dinner parties. chihuly glass structures. i think, too, there is a place for craft in art–and a place for gorgeous objects that are gloss and shine and color and light–and a place for theatre–and participants being cast as actors in some play of being in the room with dreamy works. i’ll have to comment again after i’ve been to see the show. perhaps this weekend?
Lauren Odell Usher
I too do not believe that craft and fine art need be separated, if that craft object holds more than aesthetic meaning. I think that what was most successful about the show was the installation. I do not think it was overboard in the way it was light and such. What I did not like about my experience was the museum staff, the mad rush of people and the lack of feeling in the work. What is interesting and keeps me spinning is that I think the installation has to do with the lack of feeling–funny. I agree with Lisa that Chihuly belongs outside the museum walls and that is when the feelings come to surface.
Marlene
Growing up in Seattle, Chihuly feels more like the bad-boy next door neighbor than the inflated artist that Baker alludes to. He is a strong willed character who loves what he does, has sacrificed for it, and made craft into great art. People forget that he was the first to make some of the forms that are now mass produced by other artists and companies.I say Bravo! that he has parlayed his work into international acclaim, and gets the big bucks for it. He is one of a few sculptural artists alive who has figured out how to make art and a good living. I believe Chihuly’s outdoor work in the Venetian canals, Tacoma or Leavenworth,WA or Chigago, IL (to name only a few) puts him firmly in the company of environmental or eco-artists. Seeing his work indoors is lovely, but his outdoor work is where he really shines. I have the pleasure of owning one of his older medium sized original Macchia pieces, and it is like a little universe, full of color, fire and life. I say more power to him!