
I really really love the Metropolitan Museum of Art. It is just so ginormous that I can literally go there every weekend and see not just something different, but an entirely new wing that has never made itself apparent to me. I regularly spend hours at the Met. It's like a second home- apart from work.
For the past year, I have been visiting the American Wing- always giving it enough time that I end up being kicked out by the guards, but not enough to cover all its ground. The American Wing is my own personal favorite because I'm often spending time with the paintings and the guards alone. The location is tucked away in an upstairs area that is hard to imagine in architecture. Even though I have been visiting for a year, I still have a hard time picturing how it fits into the huge space.
It's funny that the Met hides this section within its architecture. I mean, when you walk in, there are those huge steps, and the first thing you are walking into is European Painting. The architecture just guides you there. But for the American stuff, you have to find your way to the back, and enter some strange indoor/outdoor/indoor spaces that really make you appreciate the monstrosity of the place. Even once you're in the American Wing, you're hard pressed to find those John Singer Sargents they all talk about, like
Madame X... . They're all so tucked way way back in a section of the museum that likely gets a decimal of a percentage of the traffic that the European Paintings get. This isn't very nationalistic of the Met, and I personally think it's a shame. Why give all the credit to the tradition of European painting, when we can hand ourselves and our forefathers the credit for reconstructing painting in a new land.
Yesterday I hung out with the American old historical paintings. They seem so funny, these painters, painting historical battle or tactical events, characterizing their figures in
"noble" light like a drama playing out on the battle field. There's something really interesting about this notion of painting real events that really intrigues me. Like a notion of "reality" painting that could work. Like, what if we painted as television has done "real" events but ratcheted up the drama? And not just grand scale "reality" like as in historical paintings of political events... but just the banal stuff that would get edited into a 30 minute piece on how I flipped out at some woman on the subway putting her bag all up in my face.
I think this American tradition of painting has something to say about how Americans paint today. It's like it's all a farce we're all trying to pose and act like we belong, knowing full well that the the tradition of painting will always hang over our heads either in the form of placed prominence in architecture or in terms of credibility in the larger art world.
I'll try to hedge off what I see coming in form of comments, and say that recent history has proved to be the coming of age of American art and has placed Americans at the center stage of the art world. But still. Americans are isolated, pugnacious, and bratty. This shows in our paintings especially. We pose and wring our hands trying to think of more neurotic more self-deprecating ways to present our ideas, and it all comes off false. We're likable, just not terribly sure of ourselves, and not certain that we fit the way we want to fit. I'd expand this cultural identity all the way up to our President, GWB. Bragadoccio and humility mix in an awful display of ineptitude that I think we all have to face. I think one way to start to retrain our perspective is to suit our largest national museum to the American prominence that it wants to take, but doesn't want to display. Or is it the other way around?