Barr Thinks MoMA is a Torpedo

I was amazed to discover - thanks to my OU tutor - that Barr did indeed develop his chart idea but rather than use the graphical vocabulary of red and black with lines and type of varying size he changed not just his vocabulary but his language and grammar - from coloured lines and boxes to a torpedo! This takes art up to the 1950’s

It appears he sees MoMA’s permanent collection as a torpedo moving stealthily through the waters. .....

The Permanent collection may be thought of graphically as a torpedo moving through the time , the blunt end pushes into the advance field of art by means of the changing exhibitions. The bulk is made of accepted modern art. The tail tapers of into art which has become classical and is ready for the general museum. The torpedo moves forward acquiring, and retails its length of seventy years by giving to other museums [1]

At the time there was the 1934 MoMA exhibition ' Machine kind ' highlighting the Machine Aesthetic of the time so perhaps we could understand his metaphor of MoMA as a machine exemplified by the torpedo…understand it but not agree with it!

The mind boggles and the metaphors flow. Who was this torpedo aimed at? What waters were the Collection in ? What was the torpedo’s fuel, speed, engine, size ….and what do (could) they stand for? …and art renewing itself every 70 years , giving art to other ‘classical’ museums if not else Barr had a vision!

The drawings seem incomplete yielding none of overt and covert links his Chart revels, the torpedoes simply have a crude time line and artists and schools appropriately positioned along the line typed in the body of the torpedo.

There is some attempt to separate the European from non-European perhaps appealing to his target American audience but this is pretty crude. The torpedo metaphor lacks the didactic elegance of the Chart. There is no idea of the size or importance of the connections yielded by the Chart. So I regret to say the metaphor fails to produce a diagrammatic vocabulary in fact in contrast to the graphical richness of the Chart it became a simple language with one piece of grammar - a noun – the torpedo and that’s it!


[1] Annie Cohen-Solal quoting him in her article on Barr in Abstract expressionism: the internationally context, Issue 6512 edited Joan M. Marter

Professor Charles Harrison

It is with regret I learned of the death this week of Professor Charles Harrison, for me a real loss as he introduced me to the Renaissance and art history.

To me he was great communicator with a real touch for bringing Art to life in a compelling practical, no nonsense way. His video on Giotto’s Arena Chapel I’ve watched many times it was my introduction to Art History I recommend it to anyone who wants to see a master at work : he, to me, is the consummate communicator the equal of many of the familiar Art Historians we see on TV, people like Robert Hughes, Andrew Graham-Dixon, Vladimir Janscheck– Prof Harrison knew, loved his subject and could communicate it with ease and enthusiasm – he had a wonderful, laconic knowledgeable style with his careful, soft spoken English , to me a perfect presenter and lecturer.

As for his writing, it has been a central part of almost every OU course I’ve ever done: A103 his unit on Seeing I’ve used many times when I’m at a loss as how to view a work, he goes back to the basics giving me fresh view; AA315 his chapter on Durer is written like a who done it as he describes how artists copied each other an excellent read in its own right.

I had the pleasure on AX272 the Summer School to be conducted around the British Museum by Prof Harrison as he described how the human figure was translated by artists from earliest times – he knew and had a passion for his subject. And now most recently on AA318 I see his matter-of-fact, debunking approach when describes how to view a Pollock or how Conceptual art could be valued.

He was very modest as he was really part of the art history he wrote and spoke about – at an AX272 lecture he talked about as young man in New York sleeping on Greenberg’s floor! And we can see and read about his hand and guiding mind in Art & Language.

I am unashamedly a fan: for me he is what Art History is about and what Art History at the OU is about, I for one shall miss him.

With regret
Michael

MODERNISM AND POSTMODERNISM Chart with respect to BARR

I’ve always toyed with the idea of updating Barr’s famous cover for the 1936 CUBISM AND ABSTRACT ART exhibition at MOMA, in New York.

I’ve already written about Barr's use of symbols - making the least possible change to make a point or have impact in his chart see here for the post.

The current essay on Conceptual Art following the last one on Minimalism and Pop Art was an opportunity to combine the Art History behind the two essays via a version of Barr’s chart back MODERNISM and POSTMODERNISM. In my version I wanted to trace all these practises back to Duchamp - the Father of Postmodernism. You can see my attempt here: MODERNISM and POSTMODERNISM with respect to BARR.

It's high level and misses a number of practices and I do play a little free with the exact times, maybe I’ve been too cavalier, too high level?….all feed back/comments welcome.