Visitng Art
21/06/13 04:46
We lived in Chicago from 1974 to 1978. That was almost 40 years ago. Chicago has changed. We have changed. The world has changed. One of the transformative experiences of living in Chicago was afforded by the scale of the city. There were some incredible institutions that we were allowed to visit that simply could not exist in my home town – even in my home state. Early in our time in Chicago, I began to familiarize myself with Regenstein Library. It is the library of the University of Chicago and it is truly one of the world’s great collections of books. It seemed, when I first started to explore, that there was no book that the library didn’t have. This wasn’t true, but it is an amazing research institution. This was in the early days of interlibrary loan, when it could take weeks to obtain a book. It was also in the days before computers. The card catalogue was composed of cards. The stacks were filled with real books. The collection of journals was printed on paper.
The Chicago Symphony Orchestra was considered to be one of the “Big Five” top orchestras in the world. In those days Sir Georg Solti was the artistic director and conductor. I was initially surprised to discover that Orchestra Hall, in downtown Chicago was smaller than I expected. The small hall, however, has magnificent acoustics and affords the orchestra the opportunity to play more often. There were multiple concerts each week. And on Thursdays, a University of Chicago ID card got a student an incredible discount on the ticket price.
There were many other great institutions and places in the city. We visited Wrigley Field, home of the Cubs; Soldier Field, home of the Bears; watched a Bears game in the Stadium; wandered through the Zoo and the botanical gardens; marveled at the size of Marshall Fields Department Store; explored the Museum of Science and Industry; and saw the treasures of King Tut at the Field Museum.
And there was the Art Institute of Chicago. I guess I knew that there was a category of paintings called “impressionism” before I went to the Art Institute, but there was nothing in my life prior to standing there that could prepare me for the impact of standing in front of a painting by Claude Monet. The Art Institute has several of the paintings from the famous “Water Lilies” series and there is a painting of a field of Iris that is more than 6 feet by 6 feet. The impact of those paintings is beyond the power of words to convey. The Art Institute has paintings by many famous artists in its collections. Its rather modest van Gogh collection is mostly drawings, sketches and charcoals, but there are a few paintings and mixed-media works in the collection.
Since those days I have been able to visit great museums in other cities, but the impact of my first visit to the Art Institute of Chicago and the experience of standing in front of that painting of iris is one that I will never forget. I suppose that the museum was crowded. My memories of Chicago are often memories of crowds. We waited in line for nearly two hours to see the Tut exhibit at the Field Museum. But in my memory, we saw the Monet in a nearly empty gallery. It was as if we had the room to ourselves. I don’t know if that memory is accurate, however. It seems to me that it is unlikely that the museum was lightly attended. I think that the memory may be affected by the simple fact that it was a hushed place. People were respectful of the paintings and subdued in their conversations. And the painting does inspire awe. There is nothing that needs to be said when you are in the presence of such a work of art.
The world is radically different these days. That may be merely the observation of an old man, but it is nonetheless true. I joke every year that I grow sunflowers in my garden because I can’t afford to own a van Gogh to hang in my home. It is true, I suppose. At any rate I recently was looking through the catalogue of paintings at the van Gogh museum in Amsterdam. I have been to Amsterdam once in my life, but did not make it to the museum. I would love to visit someday. At any rate, I was enjoying the newly redesigned website and the ease to looking at the paintings on my computer.
Before I go farther with my story, let me simply state that I know the difference between actually seeing a painting and looking at a photograph on a computer screen. I have a few poster prints of famous works of art. The posters are not the paintings and there is no comparison between the experience of seeing the actual painting and looking at a photograph. It is just that a trip to Amsterdam really is out of the question at this point of my life. I have other priorities. And I have already paid for the Internet access, so I occasionally find entertainment at looking at the pictures and imagining what it would be like to someday visit the museum and look at the paintings. But that isn’t the point of my story.
I was looking at the web site and I found these words: “You are allowed to take photographs, film, or make audio or video recordings in designated areas for personal use.” I nearly gasped as I looked at the computer. They allow photographs at the van Gogh museum? Yes, they do. Furthermore, there is free wi-fi throughout the museum. The image that came to my mind was horrifying. I can see rooms full of great paintings and full of people who are not looking at the paintings. They all have smartphones or tablets or cameras in front of their faces and they are looking at the paintings through their digital devices. It was a horrible thought, and, I fear, close to the reality. Imagine going to a great museum, standing in front of great works of art, and experiencing them through the small screen of a smartphone. It is a tragedy of our times.
I never needed my camera to visit the Art Institute. I don’t think they allowed photographs in those days. I would rather have my memory than a photograph anyway.
And so, until I can go to Amsterdam and visit the museum, I think I’ll be contented with just growing my own sunflowers. I’m not ready to live all of my life through the screen of a smartphone.
The Chicago Symphony Orchestra was considered to be one of the “Big Five” top orchestras in the world. In those days Sir Georg Solti was the artistic director and conductor. I was initially surprised to discover that Orchestra Hall, in downtown Chicago was smaller than I expected. The small hall, however, has magnificent acoustics and affords the orchestra the opportunity to play more often. There were multiple concerts each week. And on Thursdays, a University of Chicago ID card got a student an incredible discount on the ticket price.
There were many other great institutions and places in the city. We visited Wrigley Field, home of the Cubs; Soldier Field, home of the Bears; watched a Bears game in the Stadium; wandered through the Zoo and the botanical gardens; marveled at the size of Marshall Fields Department Store; explored the Museum of Science and Industry; and saw the treasures of King Tut at the Field Museum.
And there was the Art Institute of Chicago. I guess I knew that there was a category of paintings called “impressionism” before I went to the Art Institute, but there was nothing in my life prior to standing there that could prepare me for the impact of standing in front of a painting by Claude Monet. The Art Institute has several of the paintings from the famous “Water Lilies” series and there is a painting of a field of Iris that is more than 6 feet by 6 feet. The impact of those paintings is beyond the power of words to convey. The Art Institute has paintings by many famous artists in its collections. Its rather modest van Gogh collection is mostly drawings, sketches and charcoals, but there are a few paintings and mixed-media works in the collection.
Since those days I have been able to visit great museums in other cities, but the impact of my first visit to the Art Institute of Chicago and the experience of standing in front of that painting of iris is one that I will never forget. I suppose that the museum was crowded. My memories of Chicago are often memories of crowds. We waited in line for nearly two hours to see the Tut exhibit at the Field Museum. But in my memory, we saw the Monet in a nearly empty gallery. It was as if we had the room to ourselves. I don’t know if that memory is accurate, however. It seems to me that it is unlikely that the museum was lightly attended. I think that the memory may be affected by the simple fact that it was a hushed place. People were respectful of the paintings and subdued in their conversations. And the painting does inspire awe. There is nothing that needs to be said when you are in the presence of such a work of art.
The world is radically different these days. That may be merely the observation of an old man, but it is nonetheless true. I joke every year that I grow sunflowers in my garden because I can’t afford to own a van Gogh to hang in my home. It is true, I suppose. At any rate I recently was looking through the catalogue of paintings at the van Gogh museum in Amsterdam. I have been to Amsterdam once in my life, but did not make it to the museum. I would love to visit someday. At any rate, I was enjoying the newly redesigned website and the ease to looking at the paintings on my computer.
Before I go farther with my story, let me simply state that I know the difference between actually seeing a painting and looking at a photograph on a computer screen. I have a few poster prints of famous works of art. The posters are not the paintings and there is no comparison between the experience of seeing the actual painting and looking at a photograph. It is just that a trip to Amsterdam really is out of the question at this point of my life. I have other priorities. And I have already paid for the Internet access, so I occasionally find entertainment at looking at the pictures and imagining what it would be like to someday visit the museum and look at the paintings. But that isn’t the point of my story.
I was looking at the web site and I found these words: “You are allowed to take photographs, film, or make audio or video recordings in designated areas for personal use.” I nearly gasped as I looked at the computer. They allow photographs at the van Gogh museum? Yes, they do. Furthermore, there is free wi-fi throughout the museum. The image that came to my mind was horrifying. I can see rooms full of great paintings and full of people who are not looking at the paintings. They all have smartphones or tablets or cameras in front of their faces and they are looking at the paintings through their digital devices. It was a horrible thought, and, I fear, close to the reality. Imagine going to a great museum, standing in front of great works of art, and experiencing them through the small screen of a smartphone. It is a tragedy of our times.
I never needed my camera to visit the Art Institute. I don’t think they allowed photographs in those days. I would rather have my memory than a photograph anyway.
And so, until I can go to Amsterdam and visit the museum, I think I’ll be contented with just growing my own sunflowers. I’m not ready to live all of my life through the screen of a smartphone.