As for painting, an example is the work of Giorgio Morandi (1890-1964). In theory, I ought to like him because he resisted some modernist desiderata. But ... well, take a look:
I'm sorry, but I just can't grasp what is so good about Morandi's paintings in spite of the fact that he has been the subject of increasing praise in recent years. Worse, if someone tried to explain why it is good, I still wouldn't understand.
When it comes to still lifes (not my favorite genre), I much prefer something like this one by David Leffel.
4 comments:
You're lucky Debussy only bores you; he leaves me sunk in gloom. I don't care for Morandi's cold stuff either.
I don't see much in his works either, but apparently many people see things differently.
Peter
Agreed. Morandi = boring.
And yet...the review of Morandi at the Met a couple of December's ago was the most exciting show I've seen since Monet in Boston. We tripped across it, as we were there for the Creche, and so was ripe for surprise. I knew nothing of him. But the repetitions of his still lifes reverberated between formalism and impressionism and the modern, such by the end of the hall I knew I was seeing something new. A road stop on the way to the radically abstract. Monet, I think, said "I paint what is between me and the object." I think Cezanne picked that up. Morandi who had both in mind, stayed with that thought. He saw the vase and the boxes in as many different ways as Cezanne saw shape and Monet saw light. Same object, many views.
Post a Comment