My wife went back to work two weeks ago at her job at an archives which maintains the papers of many artists and works closely with several art museums. To mark that event, I offer you this list, of the 50 Best Works of Art and how to see them. It comes from (again) kottke.org from a link/article from the Telegraph (UK). And here you can see the list, with links to Wikipedia for more information about the works of art.
This list is sure to spark some discussions as, with all lists, it is subjective and bears the stamp of the person who created the list. I am purposely not including the list in this post for (a) it is too long; (b) I don't agree with how it is arranged; and (c) who is to say what makes a great work of art? It should be noted that in the article, the list is presented chronologically, with explanations about how easy it is to get to see them. What's your take? How many have you seen?
I consider myself a fairly cultured person and in a previous job, I worked on arranging the papers of Nelson Rockefeller's art collection, who collected a lot of Modern Art, but also had a full spectrum of art in his collection. And I have to say that while I definitely recognized most of the works, I have not seen more than a few of them in person. Of course, there is the whole discussion to be had about how we are defining "best"? I have a very good friend, who reads this blog, who is an artist and I like her stuff. Were I to write an article about great works of art, would her name appear?
I am further reminded of the depiction of art museums in popular culture. There is the scene in Ferris Bueller, where they rush through an art museum in Chicago; the scene in National Lampoon's European Vacation, where they take in the sights of the Louvre in fifteen minutes. The Louvre is also prominently featured in the film, The Da Vinci Code.
I really believe that art is what you make of it. Not every work of art is for everyone. What I like may not be what you like. As I like to tell my wife, it's not wrong, it's just different.
3 comments:
I've seen 11. And most of those works weren't the ones I learned about in intro art history. I hate "best" lists; but it does seem that the best things shouldn't necessarily all be at the introductory level. Some of them at least should be pieces you have to learn about/struggle with. Still, those 11 aren't necessarily the most interesting pieces I've struggled with.
Art is soooo subjective I don't think you can have a "best" list for it, really. It's all wonderful for its own reasons & should be celebrated, always. Then again, I may be biased...
Sorry I haven't been around lately, btw. Mundania intruded, yet again!
Of the people that read my blog, you are certainly the two that I expected to have commented on this blog. Lana of course because I called you out on it (my artist friend) and Anna because you roomed with Best Pal as she got her degree in Art History.
But I really vacillated about this post and am a little surprised it did not generate any more strident opinions.
Post a Comment