Wednesday, October 14, 2009

In the Land of Not-Art . . .

New assignment! Last Thursday, we took a trip to the Walker. Our jobs were to find a piece we either strongly liked or strongly disliked and interpret it.
Here is what I found.
- - - - - -
Frank Gehry - Standing Glass Fish, 1986
Made of wood, glass, steel, silicone, plexiglass, and rubber

"In Toronto, when I was very young, my grandmother and I used to go to Kensington, a Jewish market, on Thursday morning. She would buy a carp for gefilte fish. She'd put it in the bathtub and this big black carp - two or three feet long - would swim around and I would play with it. I would watch it turn and twist . . . and then she'd kill it and make gefilte fish and that was always sad and awful and ugly."
Fish have been a recurring motif in Gehry's work. He was first inspired by them when his grandmother would bring them home Thursday morning and put them in the bathtub. One can often find resemblences of them in his furniture and architectural designs and drawings.
Gehry is more well known for his stunning and innovational architectural pieces like the Walt Disney Concert Hall and the Guggenheim Bilbao than he is for his sculptural pieces like the Standing Glass Fish. Google Gehry's name and I personally guarantee you that you will find much, much more about his architectural work than his sculptural work or drawings. However, I find that this one sculptural work is more impressive than any of the buildings he has created. Perhaps this is because I haven't seen them in person, but even having never seen the fish in person, it would still rank higher than the Walt Disney Concert Hall. Why? Because the fish is real.
When I think Walker, I think of rooms and rooms of art that don't make sense. Paintings that are just color and shape. Sculptures that look as though a lump of clay or melted plastic or random objects from the kitchen junk drawer were just placed on a stand and labeled with a fancy title or the ever mysterious 'Untitled'. Things that don't make sense unless you know the context of them - when they were made, who made them, what the artist was thinking/feeling/doing when they made them. But this fish . . . The fish is a fish. There's no hidden key to unlocking its secrets. You don't have to do research to figure out its meaning. It tells you what it is the moment you see it and if you want to know more, it's right there for you on that handy little plaque in front of the sitting pool.
I feel like the fact that you can see the underlying structure of the sculpture relates to the ugliness of the story that he told about his grandmother killing the fish. In a lot of sculptures, you don't see the inside structure that gives it its form or keeps it all together. Yet, even while you see the 'ugliness' of the sculpture, the glass scales and fins of the fish reflect the beauty that Gehry was, and still is inspired by. The pool that this fish comes out of can also be a respresentation of the bathtub that the fish once swam in. However, since the water appears to be black, the pool doesn't reflect the happiness of seeing that fish swim, but rather the sadness and awfulness of seeing it killed and made into something like gefilte fish.
While, to me, the fish is just a fish, to Gehry, this is a memory of the moments he spent watching the carp swim around in his bathtub.
So. After not being able to walk past the french fries, trapped in a world of confusing art pieces after confusing art pieces, I found refuge in this fish. Thank you, Frank Gehry, thank you so very, very much.
c:

Other Images //
Sources //
Imaginary Sources //

8 comments:

  1. I can see how this fish could feel like a refuge after the confusing art within the museum, but I am wondering what your interpretation is here. It seems you are just saying "it's just a fish, and that's all." Ironically, you are bothered by work where the context is all-important, yet you are saying part of why you like this work so much is its context - because you ended up seeing it right after seeing other work that didn't move you or seemed too boring or difficult. I imagine there must be more to interpret here, and more to why it appealed to you, or what you think it might be about. Does it seem proud? Sad? Pathetic? Is it an icon? Does the sculpture work as an antidote to the "ugliness" of the gefilte-fish story?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Alright. I edited it a bit. Thanks for the feedback, by the way. I get really confused with these interpretations.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The way you think of the Walker displeases me. You say this sculpture is just a fish and that you like that, but then why isn't the soft sculpture of french fries just french fries to you? It confuses me as to why you think so differently and sometimes negatively about each work of art. They each have a reason for being made and a back story which makes them important. There are a lot of beautiful and interesting things in the Walker, but you may have trouble seeing them because of your preconceived notions that all of the art there is, "art that don't make sense. Paintings that are just color and shape. Sculptures that look as though a lump of clay or melted plastic or random objects from the kitchen junk drawer were just placed on a stand and labeled with a fancy title or the ever mysterious 'Untitled'." There is so much more variety in the Walker than this.
    Try to keep an open mind and enjoy what's around you. Don't just insult all of the artworks and the artists who created them by lumping them all together. They are all so different and deserve to be given respect and consideration before insults and stereotypes.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's a nice interpretation, I like how there is a background story to it and how you interpreted the emotion of it. I think you should try relating the materials and it's physical form to his story. Why a net and not a solid skin? Or even so, why not an actual realistic fish? How did he abstract the fish to fit his memory?

    Not to give ya shit for your title, but that's just disrespectful to call something not art. You might not like it, you might not get it, but the least you could do it respect it as art. Otherwise, how are you going to expect others to respect what you do as art?

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's sarcasm, guys. I understand that other people love the art that is at the Walker, but then again, this is my own interpretation. I haven't been exposed to a lot of the kind of art that is featured at the Walker, and honestly, I really don't like it. Perhaps, as I view more and learn the reasonings behind their creation, I'll come to like it more. But as of right now, I don't. It's just my opinion. I don't mean to put down any other people's thoughts or opinions through my title, so honestly, I'm sorry if that's how it came across. Again, I was just being sarcastic with the title. It's not aimed to offend.

    ReplyDelete
  6. And expanding off that previous comment, the same can be said for the actual body of the post. I don't mean to offend. It's just honestly what is in my mind when viewing the works. I'm not going to apologize for what I think, but I will say that I didn't write it to put down the other work there.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think there are some good points being made here about keeping an open mind, and I am glad to see our class embracing that idea - but you should feel entitled to your opinions, just make sure you are open to new experiences and growth, too. (Obviously you were, as you found a piece that *did* appeal to you). Even people who understand all the art at the Walker and see it as legitimate and serious don't like it all. There's a lot of art I completely "get" and still don't like. I could tell where the humor and sarcasm was in the post. I like the addition, too. I think it makes your post more interesting. Again, I would say that it is ironic that some of the added depth to your interpretation here *does* come from research and the back story, much as it might with any other piece.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ha.. you'll enjoy next year's art history. You'll understand EVERYTHING. It's like a revelation.

    To be honest, I've been there too. One of the first times I went to the walker (about a year ago) I went there and came out laughing. I'll admit I was pretty uneducated :) And like Richard said, I get a lot of it but I still don't like some of it. I didn't say you have to change it or apologize. Trust me, I know exactly how you view that kind of art. It was just a matter of respect. I was just curious if you had that.

    At least, you have an open mind to change of that opinion (if it is to come). Many people don't.

    ReplyDelete