The Pablo Picasso Alzheimer's Therapy

NY Times ^ | October 30, 2005 | RANDY KENNEDY

[neverdem]

SITTING the other day in front of Picasso's rapturous "Girl Before a Mirror" at the Museum of Modern Art, Rueben Rosen wore the dyspeptic look of a man with little love for modern art. But the reason he gave for disliking the painting was not one you might expect to hear from an 88-year-old former real estate broker.

"It's like he's trying to tell a story using words that don't exist," Mr. Rosen said finally of Picasso, fixing the painter's work with a critic's stare. "He knows what he means, but we don't."

This chasm of understanding is one that Mr. Rosen himself stares into every day. He has midstage Alzheimer's disease, as did the rest of the men and women who were sitting alongside him in a small semicircle at the museum, all of them staring up at the Picasso.

It was a Tuesday, and the museum was closed, but if it had been open other visitors could have easily mistaken the group for any guided tour. Mr. Rosen and his friends did not wear the anxious, confused looks they had worn when they first arrived at the museum. They did not quarrel in the way that those suffering from Alzheimer's sometimes do. And when they talked about the paintings, they did not repeat themselves or lose the thread of the discussion, as they often do at the long-term care home where most of them live in Palisades, N.Y.

At one point, a member of the tour, Sheila Barnes, 82, a quick-witted former newspaper editor who suffers from acute short-term memory loss...

[dangus]

So because some modern art is not to your liking, all modern art is bad?

Btw, Pollack is not abstract; he is non-representational. Picasso is abstract. "Abstract" means that the art represents something, but it has been distorted or transformed in such a way that it is not realistic. Abstract art has its roots in ancient Christianity: the grotesque disproportions of some iconography is because the proportions have an abstracted meaning, rather than attempts at accurately depicting real human beings.

Art that depicts no real subject at all is called "non-representational. Non-representational art is not necessarily supposed to be "deep," but often consists of merely noticing or demonstrating the effects of color, placement, randomization, chaos, etc.

You're not SUPPOSED to look at a Jackson Pollack and say, "why that looks exactly like how I always pictured the Madona and Child," or "what a brilliantly emotional illustration at the shortcomings of the capitalist system!" You're supposed to look at his works the way you would the vapor trail coming off a jet airplane, or the still-motion capture of a splash of water in a pond. In fact, that sort of turbulence is exactly what Jackson Pollack expressed. The difference between viewing a Rembrant and a Pollack is like the difference between listening to Shakespeare and listening to rain on a tin roof.

That said, there are a lot of poseurs and a many in the art community afflicted with "The Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome. Pollack and Picasso are difficult to understand, and are often appreciated by the types who put Steven Hawkins' books on their coffee tables but who couldn't tell you one of the three laws of thermodynamics. Or they mistake venting their rage and hatred as art. Their crime is so great not only because of their venom against all things decent, but because they also defame true art.

[dangus]

Yes.... if there is an art ping, please put me on it.

[dangus]

For an excellent explanation of modern art, from a perspective of some who loves Christ, try Sister Wendy. She is non-judgmental, but she also doesn't mind saying, "I really don't get this." But she can really help a conservative understand modern art.

[dangus]

I would be interested in your comments of this explanation (post 21).

[neverdem]

So because some modern art is not to your liking, all modern art is bad?

Bad or good, it usually makes no difference to me. I would not have taken the art course unless I had to, IIRC. As far as aesthetic appeal, I find it in useful architecture. Otherwise, give me some science, but not social science.

[Dark Skies]

If I may...I think you have "neverdem" all wrong. He made the original post and seems quite well-informed about modern art (as he has demonstrated adequately to me in posts above).

But it is nice to see that modern art still arouses passion. IMHO, that is one of the great by-products of it. Over the years, I have almost come to blows with good friends over Van Gogh and Picasso.

[Republicanprofessor]

I'm glad you liked those posts. If you want more such posts, here you go. I'm always interested in feedback on these ideas.

class #10: Postmodernism http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1473061/posts?page=17

class #9: Pop and Minimal Art http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1470726/posts?page=2

class 8: Pollock and Abstract Expressionism: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1468241/posts

class 7: American Modernism: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1440373/posts

class 6: Surrealism: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1427099/posts

class 5: Cubism: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1427099/posts

class 4: Expressionism: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1424087/posts

class 3: Cezanne and van Gogh; http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1419876/posts

class 2: Impressionism and Post-Impressionism; http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1414727/posts

class 1: Realism: Manet and Homer; http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1410117/posts

A new series of art history "lectures" designed chronologically from Egyptian art onward:

Art Appreciation/Education series II class #1: Greco-Roman Realism and Early Christian Abstraction: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1491050/posts

I have also begun a series on Visits to NYC and the art seen there:

Art Appreciation/Education: Visit to NYC I: Robert Smithson and James Turrell: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1507874/posts

One other essay I wrote on Christo and his orange gates in NYC: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1348194/posts

[Republicanprofessor]

Sister Wendy is awesome. I love her down-to-earth attitude. She also does not shy away from sexual content, which is always surprising in a nun. I just saw her book, a thick Story of Painting, in the bookstore. She also has several video series that may be on DVD by now.

[Dark Skies]

I bought a copy of John Russell's "Meanings of Modern Art" at the MOMA years ago...I know I must be hopelessly ignorant (and hopelessly romantic) but I can't stop rereading it.

Could you give it a thumbs up or down? And could you recommend something even better?

[Republicanprofessor]

Interesting that you wrote for a critique on your own ideas in post 21. The first part I agree with, although I often use different terms. I usually use "non-objective" instead of non-representational. It refers to works like those late works of Mondrian which have no basis in reality. Abstract does usually refer to a stretching and changing of something that does have a basis in reality.

Non-objective composition by Mondrian and an abstract work by Picasso

Where we differ, perhaps, is that I do think that some non-objective art, like that of Pollock, has a great deal of content. Whether it is meaning that has been read into the works by art critics and art historians is up for debate. But I see a great deal that relates to energy and to life in his works. Sometimes his dripped lines could be seen to reflect tree limbs, as in his Autumn Rhythm at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC. One in fact is referring to a wholeness, of all life parts as inter-related as "one." I sure felt that when I was there. And there is a turbulent struggle that is common in life (and especially in Pollock's). I think Ed Harris did a great job in his Pollock film of a few years ago.

This Autumn Rhythm may look a great deal like One which I posted earlier, but in person this is much sparser with the application of paint, and a great deal of canvas actually shines through.

I don't quite understand the reference to Hawkins and poseurs and rage. I do think there are a great deal of con artists in NYC and elsewhere, and a great deal of people who buy art as a social climbing tool without really knowing much about it. But I do think that the great artists will be known and appreciated in time.

One of the great current artists is Elizabeth Murray, whose work is now at the Museum of Modern Art in NYC. I just wrote about her work today (but I am getting more of a dialogue through this post by neverdem that that post). Check it out if you are interested: her work is full of live and color and fun abstractions, often with humor.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1512127/posts?page=5

Body and Soul by Elizabeth Murray.

[Republicanprofessor]

I bought a copy of John Russell's "Meanings of Modern Art" at the MOMA years ago...I know I must be hopelessly ignorant (and hopelessly romantic) but I can't stop rereading it.

Could you give it a thumbs up or down? And could you recommend something even better?

Believe it or not, I don't know that book. But it must be good if you are re-reading it. I liked Robert Hughes Shock of the New years ago.

Actually, because I've been having such fun with these posts, I have been in touch with a publisher about a book explaining abstract art and modernism. Should be fun. Of course, that will be a GREAT book :) and I will let you know of it when it gets published.

Otherwise, I have gleaned an odd assortment of books from which I have learned certain points, but none of them are easy reads. Clement Greenberg's books on criticism (about 4-6 of them) are good, especially his essay on Cubism. William Rubin wrote an essay years ago called "Cezanne and Cezannisme" (in a Cezanne catalogue of an exhibition) that inspired many of my ideas on how it was Braque (and not Picasso) who initially developed cubism from Cezanne. Jonathan Fineberg has written a very readable Art since 1940 that I would also recommend. I often use Hunter and Jacobus' Modern Art for my early 20th century courses, but it is a bit heavy.

[Dark Skies]

...are often appreciated by the types who put Steven Hawkins' books on their coffee tables

Krauthammer says, "Hawking is incomprehensible."

Question is...why would one bring up the pretentiousness of having a Hawking book on the coffee table unless one is acutely aware of being pretentious.

Question to me (for your sake)...why would I dislike pretentiousness unless I was once (pretentious, that is).

[Dark Skies]

From what I can tell you are a great writer...excited about the subject matter and you have a common touch.

I read somewhere long ago that good writers and teachers have an enthusiasm. They teach and write as though they just discovered the issues they are communicating (paraphrase...errors mine).

You are a gifted teacher and writer...best of luck!

[Dark Skies]

Let me know when you finish your book...I would like to purchase a copy (autographed, of course). Modern art (and art in general) is wonderful...but it is not so accessible to regular folk (regular folk love it but are ashamed of their lack of education). I think you can bridge that gap...huge market of hungry art lovers out there.

John Russell ("The Meanings of Modern Art") was a art critic at Times of London and NY. Also wrote in a way that is reminiscent of your style. It reduced complex issues to simple language that was understood by both the learned and the amateur. Powerful tool, that.

[neverdem]

I'm glad you liked those posts.

I guess you didn't notice comment# 25. I almost always thank someone for a link or links, even if I don't check them. I did look at those first two. Thanks for the other links Someone else may appreciate the them.

I probably would check a link on dyes and pigments. I was chemist before I became a doc. The reason I posted the article of this thread was for its use as therapy.

[Dark Skies]

I noticed that you said you were a doc and as such has an interest in this subject.

My grandmother suffered from Alzheimer's or premature senile dementia as it used to be called. She lived in my home and was cared for by my parents.

I saw the pain...but because I was a child, I couldn't fully comprehend it. To me, it was just a thing to be handled. It had its bad aspects and its good ones.

The good one was (before the debilitating effects arrived) that my grandmother saw life very differently. She saw the beauty of little things (and art). What was amazing was while she was losing consciousness she was gaining another life skill...that of seeing the power of life as it surrounds us.

At some point she ceased to exist as a functioning human, but she started functioning in a different realm of observation of and sensitivity to this thing we call life. Not altogether a bad thing. And she sang and whistled 'til the very end.

[dangus]

Thanks for your comments.

I don't (think I) disagree with you about Pollack. My point was not that no meaning could be extracted from his work; I guess I would say that the meaning is natural, rather than manufactured.

As to the comments about Hawkins: I think a vast, vast majority of art commentators don't know shit about art. I'm not sure, though, because I'm not an art expert, either. But I do know that the vast, vast majority of film critics don't know shit about movies, so I'm not inclined to believe my impression is wrong.

Not knowing shit about art, they don't know what makes it good or bad. They do know what provokes controversy and outrage; and often seem to think that the value of art can be measured in how offensive it is. I just used Hawkins as an example of how the literati often love to PRETEND they understand something that they don't. (Hawkins is actually very simple, if you ask me... the man is fantastically adept at TEACHING.

As for Elizabeth Murray: Having never heard of her before, I'd like to take a stab at "interpreting" that painting you provided. It is of a glass of fluid which has spilled onto a table, yet it is entitled "Body and Soul." Why?

The bright colors and surrealistic exuberance of the table are in stark contrast to how many would think of spillage, which is to think of waste and loss. I suspect the artist is illustrating that it is in our imperfections that our humanity shines forth, so she celebrates the dynamism of the spillage, rather than suggest that we grieve it.

[dangus]

I once read a piece by an artist about how everyone she knew in Manhattan had Hawking (Sorry, I ALWAYS call him hawkins for some reason) on their coffee table, in spite of the fact that she "knew" that not a one of them could ever read Hawking. (She was hoping that whoever bought her art "got" it.)

She, and Krauthammer, by the way, are wrong. One reason I like that example of pretentiousness is that I've read Hawking, and he's actually brilliantly gifted at explaining things. I'm not boasting to reference Hawkings; I actually find it funny that all these liberal literatti can't understand him: My sister, who is very bright but very much not scientifically-minded and who therefore would always act very much like Col. O'Niell from Stargate whenever I talked about science, understood Hawking just fine.

In fact, I recommend his book, "A Brief History of Time" to many people... I just tell them to stop before the last few chapters when Hawking falls off the deep end because of his atipathy towards religion.

[dangus]

>> If I may...I think you have "neverdem" all wrong. He made the original post and seems quite well-informed about modern art (as he has demonstrated adequately to me in posts above). <<

Perhaps. I didn't understand why he put Pollack since the article was about Pollack. For some reason, I took it as meaning, "look at the junk they call art these days." Looking back, I'm not sure why I did.

[giotto]

the effects of the tours are often striking and seem to speak - in a world of reproduction - to the power of the original.

There is much to ponder in this sentence. A painting--any painting--has a presence that no reproduction can have. Every brush stroke is a moment frozen in time. Surrounded by flickering images on computer screens, TV's and cellphones, a spot of pigment on a surface, deliberately placed there decades or centuries ago, can be a powerful gesture of hope. Maybe that's what the patients are responding to.