the louise bourgeois show has been up at the moca in l.a. for weeks now and i kept telling myself to go see it before it’s gone. last week i was reminded that the show was still up while talking about louise with a co-worker. when i realised that the show was going to close next week i knew i’d better get my procrastinatin booty up north before it was too late. unfortunately, my pal joeygold is in nyc installing the robert irwin show at pace in chelsea – he would like to have gone. [side note: i'll be in nyc myself in a couple of days for the irwin opening. but dammit, isn't it just my luck that i'll miss the louise nevelson show that opens 3 weeks later (also at pace). man, i hate that i'll miss that. louise nevelson is one of my favorites.] however, i did have 3 fellow artnight buddies to share the experience with (tom, lee, ivy). so we made the plan to drive up and see it on sunday.
man. i’m glad i didn’t put it off. this was a really great show. before this show i hadn’t seen too many of her pieces in person, but she’s remained an artist i’ve admired ever since i saw her in the first season of art21. along with only a handful of others, louise’s photo would be vying for top position next to the word “artist” in the dictionary. i wish i had the words to properly articulate what i mean by that. she’s just so prolific, her work so vast in medium and subject. yet no matter what she does – paint, draw, sculpt – it always remains distinctly louise. and it’s not that i’m blown away by every piece or that i even like every piece. but when i look at a large body of her work all at once (in person) i can’t help but be completely awestruck at how perfectly complete she is as an artist.
anyway. i’m not much on writing reviews, but as i walked around i made a note of every piece that caught my eye so i could share it with you when i got back. like many museums, there’s no photography allowed inside. so, sadly, i couldn’t document my favorites for myself. but then again, like most visual art, a photo rarely does any justice. and that is definitely true with this show – you just have to see it person to appreciate it. nonetheless, i’ve searched the web and found pics of most, but not all, of the pieces i made note of and i’ll share them with you now.
disclaimer: keep in mind as you look at these photos that NONE of them properly convey the impact you get from seeing them in person. i’m merely posting them to share with you what i saw at the show. even looking at them now it makes me think “if i’d seen just the photo of some of these, i wouldn’t be impressed”. but believe me, they are much more impressive in person – especially the red rooms which were my two favorites by far.
so (pretty much the order in which i saw them while strolling through the museum):
red night 1947:
femme maison 1946 (the order of these was reversed in the exhibition i saw):
spider 1997 (the texture of the steel legs on that spider is so cool. i’d love to know the process in which her spiders are built):
quarantania 1947:
mortise 1950:
memling dawn 1951:
dagger child 1947:
femme volage 1951:
sleep ll 1967:
cumul l 1969:
the blind leading the blind 1947 (this is one i’d always seen photos of and was never really struck by it. seeing it in person, however, definitely gave me a new appreciation for it):
janus 1968 (there were three of these such sculptures hanging together. that polished bronze you see on the “tips” was much more glowing in person):
janus fleuri 1968:
red room (parents) 1994 (along with the piece below this one, there is absolutely no way you could ever photograph these to do them even a shred of justice):
red room (child) 1994:
nature study 1984:
legs 1986:
arch of hysteria 1993:
if you live anywhere near l.a., i suggest you go see this show before it’s gone.
i brought my camera along on the trip but didn’t shoot very many photos. the ones i did take (mostly of the nancy rubins sculpture in the plaza out front) you can see on my flickr page here.
louise bourgeois
the louise bourgeois show has been up at the moca in l.a. for weeks now and i kept telling myself to go see it before it’s gone. last week i was reminded that the show was still up while talking about louise with a co-worker. when i realised that the show was going to close next week i knew i’d better get my procrastinatin booty up north before it was too late. unfortunately, my pal joeygold is in nyc installing the robert irwin show at pace in chelsea – he would like to have gone. [side note: i'll be in nyc myself in a couple of days for the irwin opening. but dammit, isn't it just my luck that i'll miss the louise nevelson show that opens 3 weeks later (also at pace). man, i hate that i'll miss that. louise nevelson is one of my favorites.] however, i did have 3 fellow artnight buddies to share the experience with (tom, lee, ivy). so we made the plan to drive up and see it on sunday.
man. i’m glad i didn’t put it off. this was a really great show. before this show i hadn’t seen too many of her pieces in person, but she’s remained an artist i’ve admired ever since i saw her in the first season of art21. along with only a handful of others, louise’s photo would be vying for top position next to the word “artist” in the dictionary. i wish i had the words to properly articulate what i mean by that. she’s just so prolific, her work so vast in medium and subject. yet no matter what she does – paint, draw, sculpt – it always remains distinctly louise. and it’s not that i’m blown away by every piece or that i even like every piece. but when i look at a large body of her work all at once (in person) i can’t help but be completely awestruck at how perfectly complete she is as an artist.
anyway. i’m not much on writing reviews, but as i walked around i made a note of every piece that caught my eye so i could share it with you when i got back. like many museums, there’s no photography allowed inside. so, sadly, i couldn’t document my favorites for myself. but then again, like most visual art, a photo rarely does any justice. and that is definitely true with this show – you just have to see it person to appreciate it. nonetheless, i’ve searched the web and found pics of most, but not all, of the pieces i made note of and i’ll share them with you now.
disclaimer: keep in mind as you look at these photos that NONE of them properly convey the impact you get from seeing them in person. i’m merely posting them to share with you what i saw at the show. even looking at them now it makes me think “if i’d seen just the photo of some of these, i wouldn’t be impressed”. but believe me, they are much more impressive in person – especially the red rooms which were my two favorites by far.
so (pretty much the order in which i saw them while strolling through the museum):
red night 1947:
femme maison 1946 (the order of these was reversed in the exhibition i saw):
spider 1997 (the texture of the steel legs on that spider is so cool. i’d love to know the process in which her spiders are built):
quarantania 1947:
mortise 1950:
memling dawn 1951:
dagger child 1947:
femme volage 1951:
sleep ll 1967:
cumul l 1969:
the blind leading the blind 1947 (this is one i’d always seen photos of and was never really struck by it. seeing it in person, however, definitely gave me a new appreciation for it):
janus 1968 (there were three of these such sculptures hanging together. that polished bronze you see on the “tips” was much more glowing in person):
janus fleuri 1968:
red room (parents) 1994 (along with the piece below this one, there is absolutely no way you could ever photograph these to do them even a shred of justice):
red room (child) 1994:
nature study 1984:
legs 1986:
arch of hysteria 1993:
if you live anywhere near l.a., i suggest you go see this show before it’s gone.
i brought my camera along on the trip but didn’t shoot very many photos. the ones i did take (mostly of the nancy rubins sculpture in the plaza out front) you can see on my flickr page here.