MoMa and Dada

[ablarc]

MOMA AND DADA

My college roommate Zack lived at MoMA.

A member, he inhaled its rarefied air weekly and he lived its twin doctrines: l’art pour l’art and epater le bourgeois.

Between visits he mulled through Rimbaud or e. e. cummings and montaged the works of Picabia and Man Ray --some of which were (al)ready-made collage. R. Mutt’s urinal adorned his wall, teacups in his world were lined with fur, and Mona Lisa came with a mustache.

Zack was a Dadaist.

He whiled hours at his drumset, cigarette adangle from the corner of his mouth. He was backing Django, and the cigarette: well, that was clearly Camus’ homage to Bogey.

Zack was the most mercurial and interesting person a midwest hick like me had ever met. He got me interested in New York, smoking, Gertrude Stein, the Village and MoMA. He broadened my mind and he stoked my rebellion.

Children, obey your parents, for this is the secret of long life,

There was always something new and in-your-face at MoMA, something you knew the Babbitts didn’t --couldn’t-- ever get. So the Babbitts mostly stayed away, and the hardcore visitors were goateed intellectuals or earnest, pretty girls with glasses.

Except on Saturdays when it was a little crowded and full of boyfriends, it was a great place to pick up girls. You could spot one lost in solitary contemplation of a Franz Kline, sidle up and murmur gently, “can you believe how much it’s full of space?” Then if you could afford it you could hit the deserted cafeteria for a “Danish Open Sandwich” --some kind of raw fish on nubbly black bread—Danish because the folks at MoMA knew Denmark as the well-spring of virtue in all applied arts…You could wash it down with French mineral water. Very healthy, very soulful.

MoMA was so avant-garde!

So I was juiced, boy, for my first MoMA visit since the big makeover.

I was completely unprepared for what I found.

What I found was a mall. And it was full of mall-goers: 80% overweight and 40% obese. To be truthful, the Dada special exhibit still had its contingent of goatees --that stuff was clearly too boring for regular folks to bother with; you could see the couples from Jersey enter, hesitate and wheel their strollers right back out of that one. But the rest of the Museum…fuhgeddaboudit.

For starters, this mall comes with a food court: no fewer than three different eating places packed to the gills. In fact the whole place smells of food; like good marketeers the management knows how to entice with aromas. You didn’t think they made their megabucks just on the $20 entrance fee, did you?

The circulation resembles a mall, a department store or a multi-story Cineplex. There’s a concourse that runs through from 54th to 53rd Street. After you pass through ticket control, it’s a department store organized about escalators and elevators. Third floor, hosiery, ladies undergarments…I mean Drawings, Photography, Architecture and Design

Douanier Rousseau’s still there and the Demoiselles d’Avignon and the Postman Roulin, and the Pop Art is dutifully on display along with the Pollocks and the Rothkos.
There’s the same Cisitalia, the same old Bauhaus originals. But now somehow it all seems so… old hat.

Then it hits you: they’re selling exactly the same stuff as when Alfred Barr was the director half a century ago. There it is: the avant-gardism of 1960 perfectly embalmed, now a historical artifact. Why …it belongs in a museum!

Modern?...nah. Fire in the belly?...Oh…

Avant-garde? …maybe next week.

Nice stuff, but since it’s no longer really relevant, you could think of it as remnants of a now-dead movement --if only folks knew enough history for it to have any meaning for them.

It’s reflected in how much time people allocate to looking at each piece. Some folks don’t even break step with their strollers, others hop dutifully from highlight to highlight as programmed by their portable electronic commentaries. They don’t even see the stuff in between. (Really, they don’t even see the highlights; they’re too busy trying to spot what the commentator is pointing out.)

It’s the philistine festival, and you can plainly see they’re bored. Just like they’re bored at the mall. Same old, same old…

You can’t pick up a pretty girl with glasses any more; there’s no solitude, there’s no contemplation, there’s no peace, there’s no meaning. It’s a mob scene in a mall and the commodity that’s being sold is art.

But no one’s really buying because they don’t know or trust the merchandise. If there are any Zacks left they skulk in on a Tuesday at eleven. But you know there aren’t: who plans his life around a commercial?

Over the years I wondered what had become of Zack. Then I ran into a mutual classmate, who knew.

Zack had put a bullet through his head. It was the ultimate Dada routine.

[BPC]

Gee, sorry to hear that. One can't possibly be expected to appreciate modern art in the presence of fat people.

[ryan]

"Modernism" describes a movement in 20th century art, so it's entirely appropriate that the collection looks like it did 50 years ago - that's what they're going for. Modern does not mean contemporary in an art context and moma is nothing more than a time capsule. If you'd like to see contemporary art, a more appropriate museum would be The Whitney or PS1. Better yet, go to Chelsea.

It's so absurd I'm not sure this isn't a joke. (though I'm fascinated to hear more about this rebellion you're stoking in the suburbs).

[Fabrizio]

Yes, I remember the MOMA when it was absolutely empty during the day. It seemed special and that the people who went truly loved art. I remember how simple the cafeteria was. The museum was modern but had a patina.

[ablarc]

One can't possibly be expected to appreciate modern art in the presence of fat people.
^ The story's essence. :)

"Modernism" describes a movement in 20th century art, so it's entirely appropriate that the collection looks like it did 50 years ago - that's what they're going for. Modern does not mean contemporary in an art context and moma is nothing more than a time capsule. If you'd like to see contemporary art, a more appropriate museum would be The Whitney or PS1. Better yet, go to Chelsea.
^ Stated with exactly the right level of pedantry for the context. Mind the cow pies.

It's so absurd I'm not sure this isn't a joke.
Continuing in the spirit of pedantry: though it's couched as reportage, it has formal elements of a joke, including a punch line and an antic viewpoint.

It also contains an invitation to join the joke.

I'm fascinated to hear more about this rebellion you're stoking in the suburbs.
I said that? Can't find it.

Must refer to some other thread.

Yes, I remember the MOMA when it was absolutely empty during the day. It seemed special and that the people who went truly loved art. I remember how simple the cafeteria was. The museum was modern but had a patina.
Modern art was still unpopular then, because it was still alive. Had teeth.

It's not really popular now either, but folks feel free to ignore it on their way to one of the restaurants.

[lofter1]

I've been a member of MoMa for years -- always liked the fact that I could pop in for an hour or so (not feeling the compulsion to hang around for hours to get the full worth of my admission fee -- and with the new admission fee of $20 it seems people feel compelled to hang about, but the configuration of the building does not help to guide the experience).

Since the expansion was completed the building has not drawn me in the way it used to. Partly because of the crowds, partly because I'm not crazy about the new configuration. The new entry / staircase really does make you feel like you're being funneled into some controlled experience in an odd way.

Some of the new transitional spaces simply overwhelm the pieces that are displayed there.

When I go to MoMa nowadays I tend to take the elevator to the great new loft like spaces at the top of the addition -- the only part of the new building that feel special to me.

But the membership does offer easy access to the Film series in the theaters on the lower level -- still one of the best deals in town.

[ablarc]

Since the expansion was completed the building has not drawn me in the way it used to.
In the drive to the minimal, someone threw out the je ne sais quoi by mistake.

[BPC]

Originally Posted by BPC
One can't possibly be expected to appreciate modern art in the presence of fat people.

^ The story's essence. :)

Perhaps not, but it is interesting to see the shifting boudnaries of political correctness at work. It would (thankfully) be unacceptable today to say you cannot enjoy art in the presence of "negroes" or "homos," but somehow the fatties are still fair game. I suppose one could argue that the difference is the overweight brought this revulsion upon themselves through their personal conduct, but then that is not always the case (some people have thyroid conditions and the like). Also, the same could arguably be said of the poor, but hopefully no one on this board would be so crass as to suggest that too many poor people spoil the art. Perhaps the comment was simply a way to distinguish "cool" Manhattanites (who because of all the walking and other social factors tend to be skinnier, on average) from "uncool" persons in the outer-boroughs and elsewhere beyond city limits (who tend to be heavier as a result of living within the prevailing car and fast food culture).

Whatever the case, if your roommate Zack really shot himself rather than live in a world where he would have to coexist with uncool fat people, before resorting to violence, he should have first given Scandanavia a try. I am told that almost everyone there is tall and slim, although they could do a better job of guarding their Munch's.

[ablarc]

Perhaps not, but it is interesting to see the shifting boudnaries of political correctness at work. It would (thankfully) be unacceptable today to say you cannot enjoy art in the presence of "negroes" or "homos," but somehow the fatties are still fair game. I suppose one could argue that the difference is the overweight brought this revulsion upon themselves through their personal conduct, but then that is not always the case (some people have thyroid conditions and the like). Also, the same could arguably be said of the poor, but hopefully no one on this board would be so crass as to suggest that too many poor people spoil the art. Perhaps the comment was simply a way to distinguish "cool" Manhattanites (who because of all the walking and other social factors tend to be skinnier, on average) from "uncool" persons in the outer-boroughs and elsewhere beyond city limits (who tend to be heavier as a result of living within the prevailing car and fast food culture).
Now BPC, this construct is entirely yours. When I earlier "agreed" with your interpretation of the essence, it was tongue-in-cheek because I thought it was so obvious that that wasn't my point. And the postulate was so patently absurd (Dada, in fact) that I thought you too weren't serious. I had no idea that you'd advance such a preposterous theory seriously; and I'm sorry you've now made a bit of a fool of yourself. Lighten up.

I suppose it's touching you think fat folks need you to spring so quixotically to their defense; I think, however, they'll survive quite nicely without. Do you think perhaps it's a tad condescending for you to think they need you?

Whatever the case, if your roommate Zack really shot himself rather than live in a world where he would have to coexist with uncool fat people, before resorting to violence, he should have first given Scandanavia a try. I am told that almost everyone there is tall and slim, although they could do a better job of guarding their Munch's.
I have no idea why he did what he did, and I hope you'll join me in thinking your theory is absurd. Nobody thinks like that.

If you want a literal theory, here it is: Zack was too smart for his own good. The world bummed him out with its imperfections. Dada dovetailed with his absurdist perception. MoMA fueled his disaffection. At one time it had the power to affect people's minds in very much more powerful ways than it does now. These days a visit to MoMA is scarcely more moving than a trip to the Mall --at least for most people.

Clear enough? I hate having to be literal like that; it's much less boring to say things elliptically, but it requires a reader to discern an author's intentions rather than imputing them. So I can't apologize too profusely for being unclear; I think the fog of misunderstanding was provided by your mind.

I suspect you misread my post out of political correctness; shows how misleading that can be. And it makes for really tedious conversation like this.

Maybe we could chalk it up to exaggeration --if you'll reciprocate the courtesy. ;) :)

.

[ryan]

For all your smug condescention, I'm still not convinced you have any idea what you're talking about re: art. I generally assume that an "author" writes obtusely - I'm sorry, elliptically - to avoid stating their ideas with vulnerable clarity. I'm hearing "art was only cool when I discovered it." Correct me if I'm wrong. That fog of misunderstanding I walk around in is dense.

But you shouldn't argue with anything I've written because it was all a joke. And I hate fat people. And I have thesaurus.com bookmarked.

[Fabrizio]

Kids....I REALLY don´t think you get ablarcs post or are even interested in meeting it half way.

BTW: I remember that black bread and salmon and sparkling water. AND I remember sharing it on a date with a red haired girl.

----------

The NERVE of ablarc....calling fat people...fat.

[pianoman11686]

Thought-provoking, yes...but ultimately, I think it comes down to a scathing social criticism. Whether or not the rise of Generation Fat is correlated with the effects is not too relevant; the point is, we're less likely to run into people like Zack these days.

You want more extrapolation? - architecture reflects the social progression almost all too accurately.

[ablarc]

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/moma/0293.JPG

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/moma/0298.JPG

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/moma/0349.JPG

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/moma/0357.JPG

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/moma/0367.JPG

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/moma/0377.JPG

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/moma/0385.JPG

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/moma/0388.JPG

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/moma/0395.JPG

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/moma/0396.JPG

[ablarc]

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/moma/0397.JPG

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/moma/0398.JPG

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/moma/0400.JPG

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/moma/0401.JPG

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/moma/0406.JPG

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/moma/0432.JPG

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/moma/0442.JPG

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/moma/0446.JPG

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/moma/0449.JPG

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/moma/0452.JPG

[ablarc]

I remember that black bread and salmon and sparkling water. AND I remember sharing it on a date with a red haired girl.
Krikey! It's like sharing the same life.

Actually, they didn't have a big selection.

My girl was a brunette.

...the point is, we're less likely to run into people like Zack these days.
Yes (for better or for worse), that is the point.

[lofter1]

More FOOD!!

less art ... ;)

[lofter1]

when looking for words of wisdom you can always look to Trudy the Bag Lady ...

The Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe, Lily Tomlin’s one-woman show ... the LA Times review (http://www.calendarlive.com/stage/cl-et-miller23may23,0,942566.story?coll=cl-stage-features) says it better then I could ...

A homeless woman named Trudy is Earth’s contact person for a fact-finding committee of space aliens. Trudy may have a questionable grasp on reality, but she understands her fellow human beings pretty well, and this makes her a good tour guide.There’s one concept she can’t quite get across, however. She shows the aliens a can of soup, then a picture of Andy Warhol’s rendering of a can of soup. The little guys can’t seem to distinguish soup from art. Which, perhaps, proves that they are a superior life form, because soup and art are both forms of nourishment.The Artists:Jane Wagner - Playwrighthttp://www.batguano.com/bgma/SpacerPixel.gifLilly Tomlin - Actresshttp://www.batguano.com/bgma/SpacerPixel.gifAndy Warhol- Artist This is Soup

http://www.batguano.com/bgma/soup2.jpg (http://www.batguano.com/bgma/soup2.jpg)

and This is Art

http://www.batguano.com/bgma/ssoupart2.jpg (http://www.batguano.com/bgma/soupart.jpg)

An excerpt from the Play:

The Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe
by Jane Wagner

Main character : Trudy the bag lady
Location : A street corner in New York City

http://www.batguano.com/bgma/trudy.jpg
Here I am, standing on the corner of "Walk, Don't Walk,"waiting for these aliens from outer space to show up.I call that crazy don't you. They're late as usual.My space chums say they're learning so much about us.They said to me, "Trudy, the human mind is so-o-o strange."We think so different.They find it hard to grasp some things that come easy to us,because they simply don't have our frame of reference. I show'em this can of Campbell's tomato soup.I say, "This is soup".Then I show'em a picture of Andy Warhol's painting of a can of Campbell's tomato soup. I say,"This is art." "This is soup." "And this is art." Then I shuffle the two behind my back. Now what is this? No! This is soup ... And This is art!http://www.batguano.com/bgma/soupart.html (http://www.batguano.com/bgma/soupart.html)

***

[ablarc]

^ Priceless, lofter! :D

[BPC]

Now BPC, this construct is entirely yours. When I earlier "agreed" with your interpretation of the essence, it was tongue-in-cheek because I thought it was so obvious that that wasn't my point.

I understood the sarcasm, and took your true point, which is why I prefaced my response with "Perhaps not."


And the postulate was so patently absurd (Dada, in fact) that I thought you too weren't serious. I had no idea that you'd advance such a preposterous theory seriously; and I'm sorry you've now made a bit of a fool of yourself.

Perhaps I have. When I first read your post, it seemed to me you were listing the reasons why you did nmot enjoy the new MOMA, the first-listed reason being too many fatsoes. Given that the subject was the suicide of your roommate, I guess I did not suspect that your whole post was meant in jest. My bad. In any event, I wasn't attacking you for being an anti-fat bigot. We all have our prejudices, whether we admit to them or not. (Personally, I am creeped out when I find myself in a room where too many people have Euro accents.) I was just making an observation as to which groups of people we are still allowed, in polite company, to confess our revulsion for. In these PC days, it is a short list, but fat people still seem to be on it.


I suppose it's touching you think fat folks need you to spring so quixotically to their defense; I think, however, they'll survive quite nicely without. Do you think perhaps it's a tad condescending for you to think they need you?


Frankly, I could care less. As noted above, it was only an observation, not a crusade. Overall, I enjoy your posts (particularly your "think pieces"), and appreciate that a real-life architect is willing to engage in discussions with us dilettantes.

[ablarc]

I understood the sarcasm, and took your true point, which is why I prefaced my response with "Perhaps not."
That clarifies a lot. My bad.

I need to take my own advice and learn to read more subtly.

Perhaps I have. When I first read your post, it seemed to me you were listing the reasons why you did not enjoy the new MOMA…
That, yes…

the first-listed reason being too many fatsoes.
They were just placeholders for vacuumheads.

Given that the subject was the suicide of your roommate…
It wasn’t really; pianoman got closer to what I was getting at.

I guess I did not suspect that your whole post was meant in jest.
It wasn’t. I was being sardonic, which is not the same as joking.

In any event, I wasn't attacking you for being an anti-fat bigot.
I’m glad. It’s my doctor, actually, who’s one of those.

We all have our prejudices, whether we admit to them or not.
Truer words were never said. That’s why I get so sick of the holier-than-thou scolds who pretend to be prejudice-free. As though any such person existed. Tiresome, boorish, tyrannical.

I was just making an observation as to which groups of people we are still allowed, in polite company, to confess our revulsion for. In these PC days, it is a short list, but fat people still seem to be on it.
Seen that way, it’s an interesting observation. There are others listed in “The Hierarchy of Bad-Mouthing” post. White males are uppermost. You can say anything bad about them you wish.

Frankly, I could care less. As noted above, it was only an observation, not a crusade.
Reassuring to hear. Wish there were more like you. We don’t need so many big mans looking out for the poor dears.

…a real-life architect is willing to engage in discussions with us dilettantes.
Sure beats talking to architects. They’re the real dilettantes.

That includes me, of course.

[pianoman11686]

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/moma/0357.JPG

Dessert: it's the subset of food that's most readily associated with artistic ability.

Who says food and art have to be mutually exclusive:

http://birnn.com/images/birnn_pallette.jpg

http://www.thepeaklookout.com.hk/art/spec_dessert.jpg

http://www.jwdesserts.com/cakes/gal-tc-13.jpg

(Yes, that is a cake...)

Maybe that's why we're all getting fat: food just looks better than it did 50 years ago!

[BPC]

Maybe that's why we're all getting fat: food just looks better than it did 50 years ago!

Getting a little off topic here, but I find that fruits and vegetables all look much better and taste much worse than I recall as a kid (three decades ago). The biggest culprits here (to my taste) is the tomato. All tomatoes these days look perfect and shiny red, yet most taste like tennis balls. Other culprits would include peaches, cucumbers, and grapes. All look great and yet are completely tasteless. Anyone else notice (and if so explain) this dichotomy?

[Luca]

Getting a little off topic here, but I find that fruits and vegetables all look much better and taste much worse than I recall as a kid (three decades ago). The biggest culprits here (to my taste) is the tomato. All tomatoes these days look perfect and shiny red, yet most taste like tennis balls. Other culprits would include peaches, cucumbers, and grapes. All look great and yet are completely tasteless. Anyone else notice (and if so explain) this dichotomy?

Fruit and veg have been bred (in a very few cases genetically modified) rather aggresively to maximize lkack of brusing and outward signs of decay through their long/convoluted shipping/handling cycle. Flavor gets lost. Go to a farmers' amrket. Whoel different world.

On thread: "Modern" (in brackets) "Art" (also in brackets) has become a global mass brand. Coolness for the masses, baby! Soon, suburban hosuewives will coo over repro Giacometti, Hirst-like dot paintings or "canned artist shit" (Manzoni). Figurative art is the next emerging / hip trend. You read it here first.

[ablarc]

Soon, suburban hosuewives will coo over repro Giacometti, Hirst-like dot paintings or "canned artist shit" (Manzoni).
I wonder...

The ones I saw didn't even break step (literally!) as they paraded by the artwork with their husbands or strollers. Such colossal indifference, so many levels left to parade through...Is the car safe in that garage? Are they riffling through the contents of the trunk this very minute?

Darling...don't you think we should be getting home?

[ablarc]

...the point is, we're less likely to run into people like Zack these days...
...particularly at MoMA.

The museum's power to reach out to influence lives with art is greatly diminished from what it was.

And the architecture of the newly-conceived Museum is part of the reason why:

architecture reflects the social progression almost all too accurately.

[Ninjahedge]

Although I agree with some of the sentiment expressed here (including how the museum looks more like a mall now than an art repository) I think there are two points that need to be expressed:

1. Fat people. In general it is still acceptable to make fun of people and criticise them for what is, in 95% of the cases, something the individual CAN control in their life. Not only is it something that is controllable, it is also something that we, as a species, look on as undesirable for the simple reason that it is not healthy.

So, you get a condition that is not healthy (which means that it would not be desirable to pass on to kids, even if you had no real desire for kids, nevermind with them in particular) that is also controllable in most cases and you have grounds for something you can criticize.


2. Art "appreciation". This really gets me sometimes. You can walk through a display of artwork and certain things stand out for you. You can get feelnigs of motion, emotion, and inner meaning. But you can also look at something where someone was trying to impart these feelings and only ended up with a can of soup.

That soup MAY be intended as a comment about everyday life, but sometimes a comment as simple and obvious as "people grow old" is lost on many of the people who not only knew this, but live it on a daily basis.

So maybe the soup can was something avant garde and progressive in teh world of modern art at the time of Warhol, but for most people that saw those cans of tomato soup on their shelf for the past 10 years, it meant very little to them.

So many people, and artists forget to realize that there are two main tenets to art. Expressing an image that embodies what the artist is trying to communicate and then doing so in a way that communicates it to the people it was intended for.

Although I too do not like the casual "that looks nice" crowd that has a tendency to look at these things, sometimes blaming them is not 100% kosher. If the artist decides to speak in Russian, you can't expect everyone that is "listening" to understand what he is saying.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Kids....I just made the connection with the title.

:)

[ryan]

Overall, I enjoy your posts (particularly your "think pieces"), and appreciate that a real-life architect is willing to engage in discussions with us dilettantes.

The irony is overwhelming.

[Fabrizio]

Ninja writes:

"So, you get a condition that is not healthy (which means that it would not be desirable to pass on to kids, even if you had no real desire for kids, nevermind with them in particular) that is also controllable in most cases and you have grounds for something you can criticize."

"...a condition that is not healthy"

"controllable"


In fact. If ablarc had been critsizing the group as "a roomful of smokers" I wonder what the reaction would´ve been.

Instead of "fat people" how about "a roomful of over-eaters"?

Would that be OK?

--------

Zippy:

thanks Pop.

[BPC]

In fact. If ablarc had been critsizing the group as "a roomful of smokers" I wonder what the reaction would´ve been.

I think smokers would be a different situation, because of the second-hand smoke issue. There is no real second-hand fat issue at the museum, except to the extent it makes things slightly more crowded.

[ablarc]

I confess to some disappointment at where discussion has gone on this thread. I'd hoped bigger issues would be discussed than whether it's OK to be fat. If I'd known we'd get hung up on such a trivial tangent I'd certainly have omitted all mention of obesity. It was only there as a placeholder for the idea of consumption; I could have substituted some other symbol of American bourgeois materialism; I'll leave you to supply your own.

Or alternatively: google "Andy Warhol quotes" and surf around a bit. http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/andy_warhol/

Sort of got derailed.

.

[BPC]

If your less-trivial point was that in sucks to be in a museum like MOMA that has become a big-time tourist attraction, I would suggest that there is nothing about that fact which is unique to modern art. Try walking around the Louvre some time. It sucks, for much the same reasons. When I was in Paris, I far more enjoyed the Picasso and Rodin museums, both of whose collections are located in small houses well off the tourist trail. You can sit and breath and appreciate the art without getting trampled by crowds of tourists, even the much skinnier ones to be found in Paris.

[ablarc]

Not so long ago, admission to the Metropolitan was free, and hardly anyone went there; you could examine a Greek torso in solitude. Now that it costs a king's ransom to get in without embarrassment, the place is mobbed. I think people guage something's value by what it costs --but that doesn't mean they really value it.

Is the Rodin Museum still free at certain times?

[BPC]

Is the Rodin Museum still free at certain times?

Can't remember. This trip to Paris was like seven years ago, when I used to travel. Now all I do is work. I think Paris the city is still around, but beyond that I'm at a loss.

[Ninjahedge]

Thing is, you are starting to go out a little frmo the original intent, although I agree there are some differences.

The primary reason for belittlement is simple. It makes you feel superior. We are that kind of race. But in the case of obesity, it is like making fun of someone who is lazy. If you are willing to go to the gym to exercise and stay trim, then looking at someone who does not with distain is not something that should be looked on as improper.

Categorizing these fat people in other ways, say equating obesity to lack of mental acuity is not fair, but saying that they are probably not motivated individuals might be a safer bet....


Now there also comes a whole set of grey areas in here. You look around and see people who do not exercise and they are not trim, not fat but "whatever". You do not see them as any posterchild for ridicule or compliment. But you see some of these people that are so obese that it is difficult for them to walk, let alone do anything else, and you wonder what makes them so unable to do a simple thing like exercise that they get THAT bad? Something is just not right.

If we were still in our primitive surroundings, they would not survive long, and our instincts tell us that this is not a desirable thnig to have/be. If we accepted things like this as a whole, I do not think we would have survived very long. Or sheer distain for this condition is a result of our own natural instinct for survival.....



Now, how does it relate to people in MoMa? It only brings to mind a genre of peopel that in the past, and today, have not really been representitive of the ones who appreciate or understand divergent artforms. This is an inherent anathema to the whole desire for like minded individuals and a desire for compatibility that the old-schoolers (either in time spent or in just mental attitude in regards to art) would like to see. So we see this appelation of negativity to a general physical characteristic that is, statistically, common to those that do not fit what is wanted by these people.


Good bad or otherwise, we are very simple critters when you boil it all down. It is just when you get all that intelligence in the way that you think that somehow you are motivated by much higher instincts when in reality you are jut making up a bunch of complicated rules to try to justify your base instincts in a social pretext.


Ah well...... Whatever. ;)


(PS, I would have though the title to be more appropriate as Moma and DaDa.... ;) )

[BPC]

Categorizing these fat people in other ways, say equating obesity to lack of mental acuity is not fair, but saying that they are probably not motivated individuals might be a safer bet....

Not so sure I would take that bet. Most heroin addicts are rail thin. Most corporate CEOS run at least a little heavy around the mid-section. Not sure you can draw to great a conclusion from weight, other than that some people enjoy food more than others.

[ablarc]

...some people enjoy food more than others.
The French are great at making distinctions. They pride themselves on the precision of their language. So they have two words for folks who enjoy food more than others.

The better-known word, gourmet is commonly used in English, where it means exactly the same as in French: a person who enjoys and appreciates the products of the art of cooking as a connoisseur. A gourmet may or may not know how to cook, but he knows how to eat: with enthusiasm, discrimination and moderation. You can recognize such a person by the fact that though he considers food very important, he is invariably thin or trim. Most chefs are gourmets, and most chefs are not fat. This is also true of most Frenchmen. It is a country of gourmets.

If you consider food very important and eat way too much of it, the French refer to you as a gourmand. You've taken something good and perverted it. James Beard was a gourmand until he went on his mega-diet and went back to being a gourmet. Being a gourmand is bad for your health, inconsiderate to those around you in myriad ways, and a sign of character problems.

Lowest of all is a person who just eats, eats and eats. He eats Pringles and Hostess Twinkies and Big Macs and ice cream and moon pies. Such a person is called a glutton, and there's not much good that can be said for him, for his obsession with stuffing himself eventually crowds out all better aspects of his life. Little wonder that it's listed as a deadly sin.

A tiny percentage of obese people suffer from glandular problems. They deserve our sympathy along with anyone else that has a physical illness.

.

[BPC]

Most chefs are gourmets, and most chefs are not fat.


Julia Child was fat. Jacques Pepin is fat. The Frugal Gourmet was rail thin(and apparently a pederast). Draw your own conclusions.

[ablarc]

Julia Child was fat. Jacques Pepin is fat. The Frugal Gourmet was rail thin(and apparently a pederast). Draw your own conclusions.
Exceptions don't disprove generalizations, and Julia Child wasn't an exception. I lived near Julia Child and saw her regularly at the grocery. She was big-boned, shapeless and tall, but she was not fat.

[BPC]

I lived near Julia Child and saw her regularly at the grocery. She was big-boned, shapeless and tall,....

too much brie

[ablarc]

too much brie...
...but she was not fat.

[lofter1]

Perhaps her ma & da ate too much brie themselves ...

Result: lots of calcium leading to big bones for the kiddies

[ablarc]

Perhaps her ma & da ate too much brie themselves ...

Result: lots of calcium leading to big bones for the kiddies
From Wikipedia:
Born Julia Carolyn McWilliams to John and Julia Carolyn ("Caro") McWilliams in the wealthy community of Pasadena, California, she grew up eating traditional New England food prepared by the family maid. She attended Polytechnic School from fourth grade to ninth grade and then The Branson School in Ross, California. After graduating in 1934 from Smith College—where at six feet, two inches (1.88 m) tall she played basketball—with a Bachelor of Arts degree in history, she moved to New York City and worked as a copywriter for the advertising department of upscale home-furnishing firm W. & J. Sloane.

After returning to California in 1937, shortly before her mother died, she spent four years at home, writing for local publications and briefly working in advertising again. Civic-minded, she volunteered with the American Red Cross and, after the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, joined the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) after being turned down by the United States Navy for being too tall.

For a year, she worked at the OSS Emergency Sea Rescue Equipment Section in Washington, D.C., where she was a file clerk and also helped in the development of a shark repellent. In 1944 she was posted to Kandy, Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), where she met her future husband, a high-ranking OSS cartographer, and later to China, where she received the Emblem of Meritorious Civilian Service as head of the Registry of the OSS Secretariat.

Following the war, she lived in Washington, D.C., where she was married on September 1, 1946 to Paul Cushing Child, a man of sophisticated palate who came from a prominent Boston family and who had lived in Paris as an artist and poet. He joined the United States Foreign Service and also introduced his wife to fine cuisine. In 1948, they moved to Paris after the U.S. State Department assigned Paul Child as an exhibits officer with the United States Information Agency in Paris, France. The couple never had children.
Paul --like James-- was a gourmet spy.

[lofter1]

JC was just naturally a big boned gal (http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/dimtext/kjn/lyrics/bigboned.htm)

[ablarc]

If your less-trivial point was that it sucks to be in a museum like MOMA that has become a big-time tourist attraction, I would suggest that there is nothing about that fact which is unique to modern art. Try walking around the Louvre some time. It sucks, for much the same reasons.
I don’t think I said it was unique to modern art; but never mind, I agree with your general sentiment.

You suggest the folks you object to are “tourists”; the ones you abhor in Paris probably are. Don’t know about the ones at MoMA; a wild guess would assign them to New Jersey and Long Island. Are those tourists? Maybe. Anyway, we all know that tourists are a category of people that can be bad-mouthed mercilessly and endlessly; they’re deemed subhuman and unworthy of respect, so it’s OK to diss them just coz they’re tourists –as though we aren’t all of us tourists as soon as we go somewhere.

Like you, I found these people detracted from the experience of museum-going. Personally, I don’t know if they were tourists or not in the strict sense of the word --none of them carried identifying marks of touristhood—and truth is, I doubt I would have abhorred them if their worst offense had been polka-dotted “tourist” badges around their necks; for me being a tourist is not by itself cause for censure.

No, what I objected to was casually verifiable without asking to see a passport or driver’s license. I objected not to who they were but to how they acted: they acted like philistines (philistine: a person who is guided by materialism and is usually disdainful of intellectual or artistic values. –Merriam-Webster).

It was clear they didn’t give a rat’s ass about what they were looking at –or more accurately, they weren’t really looking at anything at all. Truth is, many didn’t even look like they were taking in the scene. They were just circulating fairly rapidly through the levels of a department store so they could say that they'd been there. No question whatever in my mind that they would have been happier at Macy’s –and I bet some of them actually said so at home after they kicked off their shoes and popped open a Bud.

I hate that the philistines have taken over museums.

I think it’s much worse to be a philistine than a tourist.


* * *

Here’s another way I could put it: Inside MoMA in November of 1972 I think you’d have had to go around like Diogenes with a lantern to find someone who had just voted for Richard Nixon. On my recent visit, I’d put people who looked like Bush supporters at perhaps 1/3 of those present (just a guess :)).

.

[BPC]

You suggest the folks you object to are “tourists”; the ones you abhor in Paris probably are. Don’t know about the ones at MoMA; a wild guess would assign them to New Jersey and Long Island. Are those tourists? Maybe. Anyway, we all know that tourists are a category of people that can be bad-mouthed mercilessly and endlessly; they’re deemed subhuman and unworthy of respect, so it’s OK to diss them just coz they’re tourists –as though we aren’t all of us tourists as soon as we go somewhere.

I have nothing against tourists (except all those jerks snapping their photos in front of GZ). At the Louvres, after all, I was the tourist. My only point was that, once a museum hits the tourist map as a "must see," crowds will invariably follow. The crowds are what compromise the museum-going experience.

It was clear they didn’t give a rat’s ass about what they were looking at –or more accurately, they weren’t really looking at anything at all. Truth is, many didn’t even look like they were taking in the scene. They were just circulating fairly rapidly through the levels of a department store so they could say that they'd been there.

You attribute a "philistine's" sensibility to this movement, but I would suggest it is something different. For those who live and/or work in the City, like myself, I find the best approach is to pick one or two sections or exhibits to view with care, secure in the knowledge that I will be able to return again and again if I wan to. (There was a short stretch when I went to the Natural History Museum some five times for various exhibits, and I consider that a kid's museum.) But when I am in a museum I may never see again, my approach (like those you saw at MOMA) is to circulate quickly around the whole thing, scanning the art and only stopping on the pieces I happen to connect with. (For example, when I went to the new Getty in LA -- which is incredible, BTW -- I slowed down for their exhibit on depiction of children in ancient greek art, which was truly unique. I barely turned my head, however, when walking through the embroidered crafts exhibit, and I am sure that some crafts lovers viewed me with same sort of disdain as you did for the crowds at the new MOMA.

[ryan]

So the tacky fatties are philistines because they didn't look - to you - that they were spending enough time looking at the art? But taking photos of the tacky fatties (and your lunch) doesn't make you a philistine? After four pages of outrage I've yet to read any discussion of the art from you - aside from your complaint that the modern art wasn't very "modern."

I do expect some really mind-blowing insight for how much you've built yourself up.

[ablarc]

The intended point of this thread, here much better put by Nicolai Ouroussoff:



Critic's Notebook

By NICOLAI OUROUSSOFF:

Those with long memories may recall the days when New York modern art institutions were not only in tune with contemporary culture but also determined to drive it forward. At the New Museum of Contemporary Art, that spirit is back in force.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3624&page=2

Got one of those long memories.