Modern Love
I've spouted countless absurd opinions at Happy In Bag, but this might be the most unlikely statement ever made in this space- I prefer the Kemper Museum of Contemporary Art to London's Tate Modern. Maybe it's just my disappointment at discovering that the Tate displays a meager collection of Francis Bacon, my favorite 20th century painter, but my recent visit to the gargantuan British institution left me cold. Even though the Tate must be well over a hundred times larger than the Kemper, it's less welcoming and more pretentious than its Kansas City equivalent.
posted by Happy In Bag @ 7:19 AM
4 Comments:
At 5:08 PM,
kcmeesha said…
Who needs a giant museum,unless you live next to it and go there all the time.
At 11:22 PM,
FletcherDodge said…
Still, I'd love to visit the Rothko collection they have there.
At 6:02 AM,
Eolaí gan Fhéile said…
So much of the impression the Tate Modern leaves on you is down to whatever installation is in the Turbine Hall at the time - its magnificent space constituting half of the building.
Before the creation of the Tate Modern I remember the 20th century stuff at the old Tate - now rebranded Tate Britain - and the huge impression it made on me - more than my first visit to the MOMA, and yes more than any visit to the Tate Modern.
The Tate Modern is so big it is mesmerising at times, so I treat it as a collection of different museums, of digestible size - like the Seagram Rothkos that emawkc mentions.
I've no desire to talk down the Kemper, but I do find the Tate Modern not at all pretentious - especially with the current hang.
You should head to Dublin and see Bacon's reassembled studio.
At 2:16 PM,
Happy In Bag said…
Thanks for the tip, Irish.
Your mention of Rothko allows me to break out the old saw, Emaw- "I could do that."
I "think" you're on my side, Meesha, but I'm not clever enough to know for certain.
Post a Comment
<< Home