<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Met Breuer &#8211; artcritical</title>
	<atom:link href="https://artcritical.com/tag/met-breuer/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://artcritical.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2016 05:22:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=5.5.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>And Then There Were Two: Focus on Retrospectives at The Review Panel</title>
		<link>https://artcritical.com/2016/11/03/minter-and-marshall/</link>
					<comments>https://artcritical.com/2016/11/03/minter-and-marshall/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[THE EDITORS]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2016 05:02:10 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Review Panel News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brooklyn Museum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marshall| Kerry James]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Met Breuer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minter| Marilyn]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.artcritical.com?p=62840&#038;preview_id=62840</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Marilyn Minter at Brooklyn Museum opens Friday, Kerry James Marshall at Met Breuer in second week</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://artcritical.com/2016/11/03/minter-and-marshall/">And Then There Were Two: Focus on Retrospectives at The Review Panel</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://artcritical.com">artcritical</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At The Review Panel November 15 panel at Brooklyn Public Library, a cherished rule is to be put aside. When selecting shows for discussion, of which there are usually four, there is a requirement that we be looking at “a recent body of work” by a single, living artist. I guess the rationale is that if a panel comes down hard on a show, the “victim” has time to improve! But what happens to a retrospective in such circumstances? It so happened, however, that when the long list was sent to guests Zoë Lescave, Nancy Princenthal and Christian Viveros-Fauné and retrospectives hadn’t been weeded out already, the consistent choices were for career surveys. So, David Cohen and his guests will look at two artists only, dwelling for longer on each on the basis that a whole career survey needs careful unpackaging, and that attention will also dwell on the curatorial endeavor. The exhibitions are by Kerry James Marshall at Met Breuer and Marilyn Minter at the Brooklyn Museum.</p>
<p>The second of those two shows opens to the public this weekend: Marilyn Minter: Pretty/Dirty. Kerry James Marshall has been open for a week or so.</p>
<p>A word to the wise: Tuesday, the day of the panel, is alas one of Brooklyn Museum&#8217;s closed days. It won&#8217;t be possible to go from museum to library on the same block on Eastern Parkway &#8211; unless you camp in the Botanical Gardens for a couple of nights.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<figure id="attachment_62511" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-62511" style="width: 550px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="https://www.artcritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/TRP-11.16-flyer.jpg" rel="attachment wp-att-62511"><img loading="lazy" class="size-full wp-image-62511" src="https://www.artcritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/TRP-11.16-flyer.jpg" alt="flyer for The Review Panel, November 2016. Please share" width="550" height="392" srcset="https://artcritical.com/app/uploads/2016/10/TRP-11.16-flyer.jpg 550w, https://artcritical.com/app/uploads/2016/10/TRP-11.16-flyer-275x196.jpg 275w" sizes="(max-width: 550px) 100vw, 550px" /></a><figcaption id="caption-attachment-62511" class="wp-caption-text">flyer for The Review Panel, November 2016. Please share</figcaption></figure>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<figure id="attachment_62513" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-62513" style="width: 275px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="https://www.artcritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/KJM.Supermodel.jpg" rel="attachment wp-att-62513"><img loading="lazy" class="wp-image-62513 size-medium" src="https://www.artcritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/KJM.Supermodel-275x275.jpg" alt="Kerry James Marshall, Self-Portrait of the Artist as a Super Model, 1994." width="275" height="275" srcset="https://artcritical.com/app/uploads/2016/10/KJM.Supermodel-275x275.jpg 275w, https://artcritical.com/app/uploads/2016/10/KJM.Supermodel-71x71.jpg 71w, https://artcritical.com/app/uploads/2016/10/KJM.Supermodel-32x32.jpg 32w, https://artcritical.com/app/uploads/2016/10/KJM.Supermodel-64x64.jpg 64w, https://artcritical.com/app/uploads/2016/10/KJM.Supermodel-96x96.jpg 96w, https://artcritical.com/app/uploads/2016/10/KJM.Supermodel-128x128.jpg 128w, https://artcritical.com/app/uploads/2016/10/KJM.Supermodel-150x150.jpg 150w, https://artcritical.com/app/uploads/2016/10/KJM.Supermodel.jpg 600w" sizes="(max-width: 275px) 100vw, 275px" /></a><figcaption id="caption-attachment-62513" class="wp-caption-text">Kerry James Marshall, Self-Portrait of the Artist as a Super Model, 1994.</figcaption></figure>
<figure id="attachment_62845" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-62845" style="width: 275px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="https://www.artcritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016_Marilyn_Minter_Food__Porn_9_2000w_600_473.jpg" rel="attachment wp-att-62845"><img loading="lazy" class="size-medium wp-image-62845" src="https://www.artcritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016_Marilyn_Minter_Food__Porn_9_2000w_600_473-275x217.jpg" alt="Marilyn Minter, 100 Food Porn #6, 1989-90. Enamel on metal, 24 x 30 inches. Hort Family Collection" width="275" height="217" srcset="https://artcritical.com/app/uploads/2016/11/2016_Marilyn_Minter_Food__Porn_9_2000w_600_473-275x217.jpg 275w, https://artcritical.com/app/uploads/2016/11/2016_Marilyn_Minter_Food__Porn_9_2000w_600_473.jpg 600w" sizes="(max-width: 275px) 100vw, 275px" /></a><figcaption id="caption-attachment-62845" class="wp-caption-text">Marilyn Minter, 100 Food Porn #6, 1989-90. Enamel on metal, 24 x 30 inches. Hort Family Collection</figcaption></figure>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://artcritical.com/2016/11/03/minter-and-marshall/">And Then There Were Two: Focus on Retrospectives at The Review Panel</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://artcritical.com">artcritical</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://artcritical.com/2016/11/03/minter-and-marshall/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Case For Understatement</title>
		<link>https://artcritical.com/2016/03/18/david-cohen-on-met-breuer/</link>
					<comments>https://artcritical.com/2016/03/18/david-cohen-on-met-breuer/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Cohen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 2016 07:10:59 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commentary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Breuer| Marcel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cohen| David]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commentary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Met Breuer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Metropolitan Museum of Art]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mohamedi| Nasreen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Titian]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.artcritical.com/?p=55935</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>With "Unfinished" and "Nasreen Mohamedi", Met Breuer opens its brutalist walkway to the public today. </p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://artcritical.com/2016/03/18/david-cohen-on-met-breuer/">The Case For Understatement</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://artcritical.com">artcritical</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Met Breuer opens its brutalist walkway to the public March 18 with two exhibitions, “Unfinished: Thoughts Left Visible” (to September 4) and &#8220;Nasreen Mohamedi&#8221; (to June 5).</strong></p>
<figure id="attachment_55937" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-55937" style="width: 460px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="https://www.artcritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Titian_-_The_Flaying_of_Marsyas.jpg" rel="attachment wp-att-55937"><img loading="lazy" class="size-full wp-image-55937" src="https://www.artcritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Titian_-_The_Flaying_of_Marsyas.jpg" alt="Titian, The Flaying of Marsyas, 1570-76. Oil on canvas, 83 x 81 inches. Archbishop's Palace, Kromeriz" width="460" height="500" srcset="https://artcritical.com/app/uploads/2016/03/Titian_-_The_Flaying_of_Marsyas.jpg 460w, https://artcritical.com/app/uploads/2016/03/Titian_-_The_Flaying_of_Marsyas-275x299.jpg 275w" sizes="(max-width: 460px) 100vw, 460px" /></a><figcaption id="caption-attachment-55937" class="wp-caption-text">Titian, The Flaying of Marsyas, 1570-76. Oil on canvas, 83 x 81 inches. Archbishop&#8217;s Palace, Kromeriz</figcaption></figure>
<p>When news first circulated that the Metropolitan Museum was to lease Marcel Breuer’s building from its original occupant, The Whitney Museum of American Art, the word was that the Madison Avenue facility would be the Met’s new contemporary wing. We should be grateful, on the evidence of its opening exhibitions, that that does not appear to be the plan. Contemporary art needs to remain visible and vital at 1000 Fifth Avenue for the Met to thrive fully as a encyclopedic museum, for there is nothing like being able to see the work of a living artist within close proximity to achievements of distant eras, to be reminded of continuities and ruptures alike, of shifting aspirations and perennial concerns.</p>
<p>Breuer’s architecture is sold short, furthermore, if we think these sumptuously grave galleries are exclusively suited to modernist and contemporary art. As in the museums of Louis Kahn, the dark, rich timbres of exposed concrete and raw slate beautifully offset the textures of many kinds of art and artifact. Just as high modernism looks startling and fresh in classical settings, so too, anything from medieval armor to Mughal miniatures can take on unexpected resonances in stark modernist surroundings. A case in point: Titian’s <em>The Flaying of Marsyas</em>. Although arguably a little cramped and deserving a wall of its own, the Venetian master’s late glory is the magisterial opening salvo of Met Breuer’s inaugural survey exhibition, “Unfinished: Thoughts Left Visible.” It is an incredible privilege to see this picture in New York City.</p>
<p>It feels unsporting to spoil the celebration with an inconvenient observation, but this painting is surely not unfinished. “Unfinished” (a title and concept that recall the New Museum’s 2007 re-launch exhibition, “Unmonumental”) is an audacious and enterprising way of connecting the satellite with the mother ship. Emphasizing art of the last 150 years while sustaining broader historical attention, the exhibition draws a thematic thread from old master tradition into contemporary sensibility. But by what specific criteria is <em>The Flaying of Marsyas </em>unfinished? It is a painting in the fast, loose, bravura old-age style of Titian, but if every aspect of a picture’s demeanor is meant and felt by its author (and the style of this painting is totally commensurate with contemporary works by Titian) why should its lively, self-consciously ambiguous painterliness be designated “unfinished”?</p>
<figure id="attachment_55938" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-55938" style="width: 275px" class="wp-caption alignleft"><a href="https://www.artcritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/nasreen.jpg" rel="attachment wp-att-55938"><img loading="lazy" class="size-medium wp-image-55938" src="https://www.artcritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/nasreen-275x277.jpg" alt="Nasreen Mohamedi, Untitled, ca. 1970. Ink and graphite on paper 18-3/4 x 18-3/4 inches. Kiran Nadar Museum of Art, New Delhi" width="275" height="277" srcset="https://artcritical.com/app/uploads/2016/03/nasreen-275x277.jpg 275w, https://artcritical.com/app/uploads/2016/03/nasreen-71x71.jpg 71w, https://artcritical.com/app/uploads/2016/03/nasreen-32x32.jpg 32w, https://artcritical.com/app/uploads/2016/03/nasreen-64x64.jpg 64w, https://artcritical.com/app/uploads/2016/03/nasreen-96x96.jpg 96w, https://artcritical.com/app/uploads/2016/03/nasreen-128x128.jpg 128w, https://artcritical.com/app/uploads/2016/03/nasreen-150x150.jpg 150w, https://artcritical.com/app/uploads/2016/03/nasreen.jpg 496w" sizes="(max-width: 275px) 100vw, 275px" /></a><figcaption id="caption-attachment-55938" class="wp-caption-text">Nasreen Mohamedi, Untitled, ca. 1970. Ink and graphite on paper 18-3/4 x 18-3/4 inches. Kiran Nadar Museum of Art, New Delhi</figcaption></figure>
<p>Maybe it would have been better to title the show “Unfinish” — in the present tense. This would suggest a proto-provisionalism in the <em>colorito</em> of Titian’s late touch and to justify the whole range of intentionality in the works this survey assembles. Provisionalism is, of course, a hot button contemporary label that makes the nonagenarian Renaissance master sound like a Bushwick hipster, but the term is no more anachronistic that the likes of “romantic” and “impressionistic” which would have been the natural ways to describe Titian’s late surfaces not so long ago. Of course, there are many works in this exhibition that were abandoned, or just meant as sketches, or in some fashion disrupted, and the process and pictorial thinking laid bare is indeed illuminating. But the key problem with “unfinish” as deployed here is that it privileges tightness, all-overness and gloss — literal “finish,” as in signed and sealed — as somehow yardsticks of artistic accomplishment, or the norm from which the plethora of artists in this show are deviating. But these are good problems for an exhibition to have because they have us pay attention to surface, think deeply about intentionality, and allow for disruption of canonical successions and period divisions.</p>
<p>Even more encouraging and heartening is the choice of artist for the first solo presentation at Met Breuer. Nasreen Mohamedi (1937-90) was a minimalist of exquisite poise, rigor and resoluteness. This comprehensive retrospective focuses on her graphic works and monochrome paintings. The quiet austerity of her vision is the perfect complement to Breuer’s dignified architectural understatement. But more significant is the defiance of marketing expectation on the part of the Met’s curators in choosing a relatively unknown artist from outside the international mainstream and contemporary fashion: “difficult” art in “slow” mediums. It signals, let’s hope, that Met Breuer is to be placed at the service of the best that museum scholarship can come up with, defeating any sense that modern and contemporary equals flashy and populist.</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://artcritical.com/2016/03/18/david-cohen-on-met-breuer/">The Case For Understatement</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://artcritical.com">artcritical</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://artcritical.com/2016/03/18/david-cohen-on-met-breuer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
