Category Archives: Art

Rodger Ebert R.I.P.

cancer_cant_force_roger_ebert_to_fear_deathI just learned that Rodger Ebert died. The world is a lesser without him. I have never met him, and I am not sure that I ever saw him on TV, but his writings were a big influence in my love of movies.

In the very early 70’s, I subscribed to The New Yorker to read Pauline Kael’s reviews but it wasn’t until I started reading Ebert that I found somebody who whole-heartily, unabashedly, loved movies. His reviews echoed that love. I think that alot of people say that they love movies, but they really only love certain kinds of movies, they only love movies that agree with them. Ebert seemed to love all kinds of movies.

American movies are a collective, most American Art. They cost alot of money to make, even cheap ones, so they – by and large – have to be directed towards the mainstream, meaning they can’t afford the personal indulgences of, say, painting or photography. I think that Ebert loved American Movies because he loved America, because he had a generosity of spirit toward the American quilt. He had his complaints  he wanted things to be better, but he seemed to embrace America, warts and all.

Anybody who loves movies will miss him. My heart goes out to Chaz, his wife. Rest In Peace.

 

“Banksy mural torn off London Poundland store for Miami auction” headline for a Guardian article

Banksy

Banksy is the pseudonym of an English street artist. That statement is about as accurate as Julia Child is an American cook. It is accurate, but incomplete. He is also a movie maker – maybe – and, most importantly, a social commentator. No, most importantly, he is extremely talented. And prolific, graffiting everywhere from London to South Africa, from San Francisco to Israel. Below is a picture of his work in San Francisco that I took (all the other pictures are lifted from the Net).

Portrait-1-6

Typically, Banksy stencils a piece of art and then makes a comment on it.

banksy-lies-politics

Sometimes no comment is necessary as in this picture on the new wall dividing Israel and the West bank (if it is not obvious, the painting is on the Palestinian side),

banksy_13

or this picture of a bare foot boy making British Flags which was painted on the side of a store selling -among other notions – cheap flags for the London Olympics.

Banksy-Olympics-3

The picture, above, is where this story gets interesting and, to my mind, starts to raise questions.

The picture above, has been removed and the wall is now blank and looks like the picture at the top of the post. The removed picture is going to be sold at auction in Miami with an estimated sales price of $700,000 (going to I-am-not-sure). The store, Poundland, says that they did not remove the graffiti and the auction house says that the graffiti is legal, so the graffiti of a barefoot boy, in a sweatshop, in someplace like Bangladesh, was probably removed by the building owner.

This has angered the local residents who have been very proud to have a Banksy in their neighborhood and who consider it a piece of public art in which they have a vested interest. Who owns the picture and who should own it? Do the locals? Banksy doesn’t own it even though he painted – sprayed? – it. It is highly unlikely that he got the building owner’s permission to deface their property or colluded with them to make money (and, if he did, everything I wrote about it and am about to write is moot). Poundland doesn’t own it, but – it seems to me- they have a vested interest because it does increase their traffic (to the point that there are directions at the local subway station – underground, if you prefer – on how to find the art work). The City – Township, or what ever goofy English name the Local Governing Body has – doesn’t own it but they also have the right to zone against graffiti, so don’t they have the right to mandate its protection?

It seems to me that all these vested interests should trump the building owner’s desire to remove it – in the middle of the night, apparently – and sell it for $700,000, or what ever they get. None of the other interested parties, Poundland, Banksy, the City, or the locals will get any of that money; only the building owner – and the action house – will get any money. But, I suspect, the courts would disagree with me. At least that is what the building owner is counting on. For them, it is a little like winning a small lottery: out of nowhere, a picture was painted on their wall and they are the richer for it.

Lastly, who is going to buy this work of art? After paying $700,000 – that is only an estimate, a suggestion really, of what it will sell for – and the new owner puts it on their wall, what do they say to the assembled admirers? The 1954 movie, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea in which Captain Nemo seems to be the owner of a stolen painting – it is shown prominently in the background during the salon scenes – seems to be asking the same question. No matter how great the art work is, what is the fun of owning it if owning it implies that you are a jerk. And, in my humble opinion, anybody buying this work of art is sort of a jerk.

To not end on a down note, her are a couple of other Banksy murals – as they are now being called – that are still where they were meant to be.

banksy_25

banksy_03

banksy_30

Voisin and the Mullin Automotive Museum

A week or so ago, Malcolm Pearson and I went to see the Voisin show at the Mullin Automotive Museum. Actually, Automotive Museum is somewhat of a misnomer, it is really a museum of French cars and – really, almost exclusively – pre-World War II French cars, extreme Art Deco French cars. The Mullin Museum is in Oxnard, about five and half hours – without gas, pee, or food stops – out of our way, and there are not many people that I enjoy being with, besides Malcolm, that are also willing to get up early enough to leave San Jose at 6:30, drive to Oxnard, walk around the Mullin for three hours, and drive back to San Jose that same night. Even to see a brace of Voisins (17 Voisins might be more than a brace but they were bracing).

As an aside, Voisins are fine cars and seeing a group of them is interesting and great fun, but they are not great cars. Maybe a better way to put it is that they are great cars, but they were not great in the right direction. To my mind, they seem to be on the same level as Lancias (and, as somebody who has owned three Lancias, I mean that in the best possible way). Both Lancia and Voisin were trying to make – make is pretty weak sauce for the passion involved – great cars but both made engineering decisions that were both brilliant and wrong for the market. End aside.

One of the very nice things about this special show of Voisins is how they reflect the early history of the automobile. Because Voisin was an aircraft inventor and manufacturer – he first flew an airplane in 1906 and, because the Europeans didn’t know about or didn’t acknowledge, the Wright Brothers, he won a prize for the first controlled flight – the early cars were built using typical airplane construction techniques  (including aluminium rather than the more typical brass).


By 1938, when Voisin built the Avions C30S Coupe for the Paris Auto Salon of the same year, the cars were more mainstream – and not all personally designed by Gabriel Voisin himself – but still very distinctive and exquisitely made. Along the way, the company made some memorable cars that, in my humble opinion, would do honor to anybody’s livingroom as a piece of sculpture. In 1934, they built the black and yellow Avions Voisin C27 Grand Sport Cabriolet with a body designed by Giuseppe Figoni – before he joined forces with businessman Ovidio Flaschi, thereby creating Figoni & Falaschi that is, by far, the best name of any car-body design company, ever – and was sold to the Shah of Persia. In 1935, they built the Avions Voisin C27 Aerosport Coupe with a large sunroof.

In 1938, Voisin built the  Avions C30 Cabriolet with coachwork built by Dubos that was later requisitioned by an Nazi stationed in France (maybe the Nazi liked it because it was more sedate, even a little Germanic, compared to many of the other cars.

In 1935, Gabriel Voisin, himself, designed and built the C25 Aérodyne which was Voisin’s “car of the future”. It was hyper-expensive in the middle of the depression, improbably streamlined, featured an huge – powered – sunroof, and had the best Art Deco upholstery I have ever seen.

 

By almost any standard, it was a tour de force but it had a six cylinder, sleeve-valve, engine while Bugatti – out in the sticks in Molsheim – was building less expensive cars with with eight cylinder double overhead cam engines.

What I like about these cars is that they were built by individuals, artists. Idiosyncratic artists that often got lost in their art and held it dearer than making money or, even sometimes, making a good car. For years, Ferrari built very fast cars with V-12 engines designed by geniuses like  Gioacchino Colombo and Aurelio Lampredi and they didn’t have radiator fans which Ferrari considered – I don’t know exactly, undignified? too feminine? too ordinary? – unnecessary. The problem was that no radiator fan made these cars very hard to drive in the real world with actual traffic and traffic jams. When asked about this problem, Ferrari said that Nobody should drive a Ferrari in traffic, if there is a traffic jam, just pull over to an espresso bar and wait for traffic to clear. This is the same guy who – for years – refused to install disc brakes on his race cars because they were invented by the English. (I had a Ferrari Lusso – luxury in English – that didn’t have a radio or a glove box, or, even, a locking passenger door.)  Bugatti refused to install hydraulic brakes on his cars, preferring to keep mechanical brakes – with delicate cables and pulleys going every which way – long after everybody else had agreed that hydraulic were the only way to go.

To me, all this makes the cars more fun, more interesting, even if it makes them less of a transportation appliance and the French were and still are  the best -worst? – at idiosyncratic cars. Here are a couple more examples without further comment.

1939 Delahaye Type 165 Cabriolet with a Figoni et Falaschi designed body

1938 Dubonnet Hispano-Suiza H6C Xenia with a Jacques Saoutchik designed body

 

.

On the hanging of former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s official portrait

In the SF Chronicle, this morning, was an article with a second paragraph of All this raises a question about what may be the most anticipated ceremonial event yet to happen: the hanging of former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s official portrait. The  paragraph brought up all sorts of resonating thoughts starting with What? They are hanging Schwarzenegger? Oh, his portrait. and ending with He was a pretty good governor considering the circumstances. In between, among other thoughts such as the National Portrait Gallery being my favorite museum in Washington, I noticed that the paragraph was only one sentence long which I was taught not to do – I don’t know for sure but it must have been before the sixth grade – surly, the Chrony should know better.

Reading the short article – all articles are short in the Chrony – I noticed that Schwarzenegger’s picture was done by Gottfried Helnwein ( I used was because, apparently, the picture is already finished, if not hung, and done because the artist is a photographer and a water color and mixed media painter and I have no idea of the medium of this portrait). Gottfried Helnwein is not an artist that I know, but I feel I should after reading his Selected Collections page which includes the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the J. Paul Getty Museum, the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, the de Young Museum, the State Russian Museum, and the Smithsonian Institution, among many, many, others. I also read that Schwarzenegger had a picture by Helnwein, in his Governor’s office, of the Mojave and he has a photograph? watercolor? of Death Valley on his website, so I am predisposed to like this guy already.

His portraits – as shown below -look to be even more interesting.

California does have a long – if very narrow – history of interesting Governor’s portraits including this Portrait of Jerry Brown as a Young Man (sorry).

It is possible that I have now joined the legions in Sacramento who agree that the hanging of former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s official portrait is one of the most anticipated ceremonial events yet to happen. OK, that may be overstating it, but I am curious. (Oh, the portrait at the top was done by Andrew Wyeth and Brown’s portrait was by California artist Don Bachardy).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

was a

Awesome people hanging out together

Every year – for the last several years, at least – Time Magazine posts a list of what they consider to be the best blogs for that year (they do seem to change every year, so, I assume, they are really the best blogs of the year that haven’t been mentioned before). Either, way – best blog or best unmentioned blog – the list often has some previously hidden gem. This year, one of those gems is a blog called Awesome people hanging out together. The combinations are often surprising and sometimes shocking. Here are a couple of examples with their labels from the blog. Check it out.

The Digerati: Front, left to right: Eric Schmidt, CEO Google; Unknown; Steve Westly, former eBay executive; Steve Jobs, CEO Apple; Barack Obama, President, USA; Mark Zuckerberg, CEO Facebook; Unknown. Back, right to left: Dick Costello, CEO Twitter; Carol Bartz, CEO Yahoo; John Hennesy, President, Stanford; Reed Hastings, CEO Netflix; Larry Ellison, CEO Oracle; John Doerr, Partner, Kliener Perkins Caulfield & Byers; John Chambers, CEO Cisco Systems, Unknown, Art Levinson, CEO Genetech.

Theodore Roosevelt and John Muir at Yosemite

Al Pacino and Christopher Walken

Neal Stephenson, Neil Armstrong and Neil Gaiman