Peter Levin’s Rethinking Markets

June 2, 2008

Anchoring, art-style

Filed under: Art — Peter @ 9:34 am

At the Tate Modern, there are a number of paintings by Pablo Picasso. Ten are currently on display (well, as of last week, this obviously changes). Interestingly, however, there is no room where you can see ‘the Picasso paintings’ in one place. Contrast this with the room of Gerhard Richter’s, or the gallery of Rothkos.

Of these ten pieces, they are displayed in the following rooms/exhibit spaces:

Five (well, 6 if ‘Beyond Surrealism’ and ‘Surrealism and Beyond’ are counted differently, as the Tate suggests) different exhibits for the pieces. For instance, the Bust of a Woman hangs next to Albert Gleizes’ Portrait of Jacques Nayral.

Why this? Why no Picasso gallery? Because Picasso is serving a different purpose than Rothko or Richter - rather than showcasing an artist, he is anchoring various categories of modern and contemporary art. Picasso provides the entry point for any number of schools of art, because he was influential in creating them, but also because he is understood as the epitome of a contemporary artist. More versatile than Warhol, more accessible than Cezanne, Picasso currently provides the starting point for understanding surrealism, vorticism, the contemporary ’sublime’ (paired with Bacon).

Categories need centers, and commensuration depends on a ‘third metric’ that can stand outside of other, otherwise qualitatively distinct objects to render them compare-able. Just as cardinals or robins stand in for a central kind of ‘birdness’ against which hummingbirds and penguins can be ‘measured’, in late modern art, Picasso-ness is a measure against which other kinds of art categories can be understood.

Sure she’s good, but is she ‘Picasso-good’?

2 Responses to “Anchoring, art-style”

1. Jenn "the Jennster" Lena Says:
   June 2nd, 2008 at 12:59 pm

   It reminds me a little of Anna Zamora’s presentation at this year’s Inter-Ivy Sociology Symposium.

   Her argument is directed toward understanding canon formation, and she supports your notion that Picasso is central to this process in Modern Art. She is also interested in the “display proximity”, if you will, of particular artists. However, she thinks of art works as a piece–that is, she does not treat Picasso’s function differently than Brecht’s, for example.

   While I am convinced by the evidence demonstrating Picasso’s foundational status to many ideas of what modern art was and thus I buy the argument that he is an entry point for art historical knowledge, it is a different thing to argue that he is the standard against which all works are considered, and I find this less convincing.

   Or, I misunderstand the idea, because I would use your bird example to make the same point–cardinals and robins are very poor standards for someone seeking to understand the birdness of a penguin. Aren’t they? Or, aren’t they good only when combined with two or three other metaphors? Like, the only whale to have teeth and not baleen (I know this does not exist) or the only snake that has feet (again, not real)?

2. Peter Says:
   June 2nd, 2008 at 3:15 pm

   Ok, I think I may have gotten greedy, per your second point (and I remember the woman, we talked about her measure being the count of art on the walls I think - funny, considering how the Tate’s rooms are thoughful, but their walls are pretty random).

   The Picasso’s seemed to be near the entrance to a room, incidentally, which made the lightbulb go on about why this painting was here and not there.

   I guess I’m still pointing over and again to qualitative forms of commensuration, and I’ve been trying to connect that to anchoring ideas. Right now, they float side-by-side but not yet synthesized..

   Loved loved loved the Rothko room, btw. That makes me more trendy than knowledgeable, I think.

Leave a Reply