Although it may seem unduly academic to begin a review of an exhibit of Expressionist works by first defining the term itself, I have encountered at least two exhibits (the one under discussion and an earlier show at the Neue Galerie) in recent months where the term "Expressionist" seems to have been applied much too broadly.
"Expressionism was a modernist movement, initially in poetry and painting, originating in Germany at the beginning of the 20th century. Its typical trait is to present the world solely from a subjective perspective, distorting it radically for emotional effect in order to evoke moods or ideas. Expressionist artists sought to express meaning or emotional experience rather than physical reality."
Without entering into a detailed discussion of the origins of Expressionism in Der Blaue Reiter (The Blue Rider) and Die Brücke (The Bridge) schools, the above would seem as good a working definition as is needed to differentiate the style from other movements in modern German art. It is clearly distinct, for example, from both the Viennese Secession and the New Objectivity (Neue Sachlichkeit), both of which had entirely different aims and methods.
The problem I had at both the Neue Galerie exhibit and the current exhibit at Galerie St. Etienne is that a number of the works shown seem to have been indiscriminately placed under the Expressionist umbrella when they in fact have little or nothing to do with that movement. More specifically, while such works as Klimt's pencil drawing Woman in a Kimono (1914) and Schiele's early (1907) charcoal Portrait of a Lady are well worth viewing in themselves, I see in them no connection to Expressionism as I understand it.
The actual focus of the current show, no matter what its appellation, is the work of Marie-Louise Motesiczky, a member of the Hapsburg aristocracy who was forced to flee to London in 1938 following the German Anschluss. Ms. Motesiczky was an extremely talented artist and her Psychoanalyst (oil on canvas, 1962), a masterpiece of Expressionist painting, is rightfully used as the exhibit's avatar. Likewise, the artist's portraits of her mother, shown in all her obesity, are fascinating. I think, though, that Ms. Motesiczky would have been better served by a solo show rather than by placing her portraits alongside such works as Schiele's Standing Male Nude (1912) with which it shares no stylistic affinities nor any other apparent connection.
The guide which the gallery has prepared to accompany the show is itself an exercise in frustration. The placement of the works is completely out of sequence with the numbering provided in the guide. Moreover, the numbered works listed in the guide end at #70 (where the printer ran out of space) while there are several works on display which are given higher numbers and for which no attribution or technical data are therefore provided. In addition, #70 itself (Vision, a posthumous portrait of the composer's wife), a rare example of Schoenberg's artistic endeavors that I had been anxious to view, is not on display. I was told it was currently hanging at Art Basel.
The exhibit continues through June 28, 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment