Irving Penn is one of my favorite artists and I am sad to hear of his passing. I saw a retrospective of his work at the Chicago Art Institute, probably 10 years ago and was blown away by so many of his photographs. In particular, this image of Miles Davis' hand, in which you can see every line in his palm.
There was also an image from his nude series of the model's vagina, which has stayed with me ever since. My experience up to this point with works of art of women and vaginas done by men made me embarrassed and uncomfortable in their sex and taboo. I could not look at them without being uncomfortable and often felt they didn't have much more purpose than to shock.
Although Penn's image was taken from the same familiar male perspective: directly from between her legs, Penn's image with it's emphasis on light and shadows made it somehow not sexual to me but a thing of beauty to be looked at with awe and wonder and no shame. I could have contemplated it for hours.
It was so lovely and abstract that it didn't hit you immediately what you were looking at it, but once you recognized it, you couldn't help but look closer.
Aw damn. I have adored and been fascinated with Irving Penn's work since I was a girl. I will miss him every month when I turn to Jeffrey Steingarten's monthly article. I loved the photo illustrations he created to accompany the articles. Even years later I can still recall many of those images.
@keldo: I agree, very dreamy. On Mad Men last week there was a sultry summer night, with fans on at the Draper house, and kids chasing fireflies..nicely evocative and this picture reminded me of that a bit.
I saw a show of his photographs of authors -- like Colette and Truman Capote (pictured here!), among dozens of others -- at the Morgan Library a year or two ago; they were great. The kinds of photographs you can stare at for hours.
When one is busy romanticizing what fashion and modeling once was, they forget to consider what it is now. What it will be.
This exhibit seemed to be so much about showing the history of fashion. What there anything in the exhibit to communicate how each model influenced the artist? Their personalities, likes, dislikes, attitudes or just damn (sound it out) "jua de vie" (cause I can't spell it, let alone even begin to start). HOW did the model muse? They don't just stand there. You CANNOT tell me that Veruschka just Stood there and that photo came out.
Also, that ring belt IS the outfit. Fail. Super Fail.
Beautifully written, I'm sorry it was a disappointment. The soundtracks, graffiti, unlit cigarettes- wow what sorry props. As you said, it's hard to fail with some stunning, classic fashion photography.
Sounds lame. Too bad, it should have been great. Both the Costume Institute and Islamic Art have been missing for years. I hope someone with influence is paying attention. I'll be seeing it on Saturday and Sunday - my usual deathmarch and art appreciation weekend.
@rightorwrong: The Islamic Art galleries are being rennovated as part of the same project as the Greek and Roman galleries. They haven't been forsaken, I promise. I've seen some of the plans and it will be lovely when it's finally finished.
I still think this was an odd choice for an exhibit in an art museum in the way they are presenting it. If the point is model as muse and concentrates as much on the photographers as the designers, then the clothes are almost secondary. It seems like this would have worked much better as a photography exhibit. The Avedon show at the Met a few years back was fantastic, as was the David Bailey "Birth of the Cool" show in the UK in 2001. Both shows seemed to say more about the relationship between photographer and subject than this show. And if they left out Alaia then it really has nothing to do with model and designer. I usually really enjoy the Costume Institute shows, an included entries in my masters thesis about "Dangerous Liasons" and "Anglomania", but this one and the superheroes show last year just missed so badly. Why can't they stick to the small shows in the basement galleries? Those are always intriguing and well curated.
P.S. on the blank mannequins. I don't know if they are using them in this show, but the mannequins they use in the main Costume Institute basement galleries are based on Christy Turlington (both facially and in body proportions).
@hfree: Superheroes was okay, but they could have done so much more: gender roles, power dynamics, current state of the comic book industry. Instead it was all, "Hey, look, brightly colored body suit. IT MUST BE A SUPERHERO." Please. The exhibit could have been so much better.
The only exhibits that I saw recently that I loved was the Poiret exhibit and the Nan Kempner exhibit. But it seems like sponsors and donors (like Ms. Wintour) have really gained control of the Institute. The quality of the exhibits has really gone downhill. Poor Harold Koda.
@Sandicomm: I'm hoping that the acquisition of the Brooklyn Museum's collection will breath some new life into the Institute. Something to shake things up.
10/08/09
There was also an image from his nude series of the model's vagina, which has stayed with me ever since. My experience up to this point with works of art of women and vaginas done by men made me embarrassed and uncomfortable in their sex and taboo. I could not look at them without being uncomfortable and often felt they didn't have much more purpose than to shock.
Although Penn's image was taken from the same familiar male perspective: directly from between her legs, Penn's image with it's emphasis on light and shadows made it somehow not sexual to me but a thing of beauty to be looked at with awe and wonder and no shame. I could have contemplated it for hours.
It was so lovely and abstract that it didn't hit you immediately what you were looking at it, but once you recognized it, you couldn't help but look closer.
His work was art.
10/08/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
A lovely appreciation of Penn, Jenna. Thanks.
10/08/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
And yes, I smoke.
10/08/09
(I like to pretend I have a smoking room. Where cognac is served.)
10/08/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
05/08/09
This exhibit seemed to be so much about showing the history of fashion. What there anything in the exhibit to communicate how each model influenced the artist? Their personalities, likes, dislikes, attitudes or just damn (sound it out) "jua de vie" (cause I can't spell it, let alone even begin to start). HOW did the model muse? They don't just stand there. You CANNOT tell me that Veruschka just Stood there and that photo came out.
Also, that ring belt IS the outfit. Fail. Super Fail.
I'm sorry it sucked. Let's make a better one.
05/08/09
05/08/09
05/08/09
05/08/09
05/08/09
P.S. on the blank mannequins. I don't know if they are using them in this show, but the mannequins they use in the main Costume Institute basement galleries are based on Christy Turlington (both facially and in body proportions).
05/08/09
The only exhibits that I saw recently that I loved was the Poiret exhibit and the Nan Kempner exhibit. But it seems like sponsors and donors (like Ms. Wintour) have really gained control of the Institute. The quality of the exhibits has really gone downhill. Poor Harold Koda.
05/08/09
05/08/09
05/08/09
05/08/09
05/08/09
05/08/09
[www.culture24.org.uk]