Karenism Deliciously geeky

Last week on our anniversary Dennis and I went to the de Young museum in Golden gate park. I know some people aren’t very fond of modern art, so this post will probably bore you to death.

I’ve come to realize that modern art is very emo. It’s emo before the word emo was applied to music. I’ve never formally studied this era, so take everything after this is “Karen’s amateur point of view”. Oftentimes people look at painting and think, “WTF? I don’t get this painting” because it’s a bunch of scribbles and dots. Part of this era involves the breakdown of objects into simple elements or geometric shapes (Kandinsky, Miro). Another aspect is how a piece of art makes one feel. This applies to modern art in general, but particularly to artists like Rothko or Pollock since their painting are often composed of blobs of color. For me the work is significant I gain something from it–I’m not a big fan of Pollock because I don’t ‘get it’. Anyway, here are some photos of pieces that I liked.

A portion of “Three Machines” by Wayne Thiebaud (1963). I really like the texture of this painting. The painting is flat and almost cartooney; It is not trying to look like an actual depiction of gumball machines. One could imagine that it’s a printed ad. However, the paint is laid on thick and you can clearly see the brush strokes. He has very much made personal an object that is mass-produced. It is nostalgic. I wasn’t even around when these types of machines existed, but it is iconic in its familiarity. The unadorned setup is reflective of the simplicity and wholesomeness of my childhood. I wonder if he’s the same person that did the three cakes at SFMOMA. I saw that painting when I was 14ish and it left a very deep impression.

I didn’t bother to note the title or author of these paintings. They were two identical giant canvases. This seems to me a comment on modern day industrial society (probably post pop art, but of similar influence). These two paintings seem exactly alike (mass production), but they can’t be, since they were hand painted. It has this hopeful/cynical note of ‘everyone is special even if you can’t tell the difference’. One of the reasons I took this photo from an angle was to highlight their differences. Namely, that they occupy separate spaces, which is enough to suggest that they are individual. The blank white centers are reflective of the effects of carbon copying on society–flat, soulless, a loss of appreciation for detail and beauty. Their intimidating size made me feel small and insignificant. The clean, straight black lines suggests that there is an absolute boundary that we cannot cross, though some of the best of us may be able to reside at/in the blue line.


These mannequins are the from “Meat Market (1960-1961)” by George Herms. This was a piece made from items collected from the dump. It’s a rather depressing/disturbing installation but this couple stood out even more than the creepy naked broken doll labeled ’skirt steak’. Even though these dressmaker mannequins are old, broken and dirty, it was obvious that they represented a couple in love. They are intimately close and the female looks like she’s leaning into the male and he looks like he’s about to kiss her; if they had arms, they would be embracing. Considering the title of the art, though, she may just be leaning in to whisper her price to the man. However, the romantic in me prefers to believe the former.