360 Degrees: "City Landscape"

Having recently taken a trip down to the Art Institute of Chicago, I was able to view many interesting artistic works, some very, very different from each other. I would go from detailed, intricate Renaissance art to quirky photography and then to simplistic, thought-provoking Modern sculptures. It was definitely an interesting experience for me. For looking at so many paintings, pictures and sculptures, though, I didn't think that any one work of art would stand out to me. But to my surprise, one did. It was the painting posted to the left of this text: City Landscape painted in 1955 by Joan Mitchell, an American artist and member of the first generation of Abstract Expressionists.

I saw this painting in the Contemporary Art gallery and vividly remember my reaction when I first saw it: confusion. Yes, I wish I could tell you that I had some sort of momentous revelation once I laid eyes on this painting, but then I would be lying. I was just confused. I didn't really know what to think of it. Should I be confused? Is that the point? If not, how should I be viewing this? Is there even a specific emotion or thought I should be getting out of this? But the burning thought in my mind, even upon leaving the museum was "I wonder what other people thought or said when they saw this painting." Was I the only one who was confused when I saw this? I mean, in many ways, it's pretty controversial, in the ways it can 'strike' someone. So I figured, this would be a great prompt to explore the many ways this painting could be viewed.

Let's start off at the primary source: the painter, of course! Even when seeing this painting for the first time, I knew Joan Mitchell had to have a purpose in mind for this painting. As abstract as it is, there must have been an idea, a vision, or meaning behind it. Through some research, I learned that Mitchell's general interest [artistically] was to create art about urban areas. The strands of solid, bright colors were painted to evoke memories of the bustling cities that Mitchell herself visited during her travels in the Midwest. In the painting, the feelings of a vibrant city were tangled in a clump of pinks, reds, blues, and mustards and the effect is actually not much different in the city streets and city architecture, where traffic and pedestrians bolt between the structures of the buildings.

Upon learning this, I gained much more appreciation for this painting. There was really some deep thought put into it and I was happy to have not passed up this painting once learning about the meaning behind it. I'm sure there are some people who view this painting who are very educated in this type of contemporary art and can quickly find deep meaning of their own in the painting or make their own connections to it, but I was certainly not one of those people. However, I believe that I would fall under a distinct category of people seeing this painting: a person that, even though they're not educated about these works of art or cannot really find a meaning in the painting, has an open mind about it and accepts that there is definitely value to the painting, to the painter and others. Whether this person leaves it at that or does research afterwards like I did, I think that there were more people than just me who would feel the same way about this painting.

Now, let's move on the the fourth and fifth perspectives that I have thought of. The fourth perspective that I thought of, would be someone who would look at it, see a jumble of colors, and walk away. Not that it's a bad thing, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who had that perspective. They saw colors, thought it was...interesting...and decided not to give it much other thought. No positive or negative reaction. Just a casual "I'm just here to look around one-dimensionally, I'm not planning on exploring the layers of this and I certainly can't see anything right off the bat." Lastly, my fifth perspective is one that's really popular and one that I definitely heard when I was at the museum. That would be the negative, defensive perspective. People who see nothing, assume it's nothing, and are instantly infuriated by the fact that it's in a museum. I heard a couple comments actually, like "What is this?! My four year old could probably do the same thing!" or "If I took a bed sheet and some paint and brushes, I could do the EXACT SAME THING! So why is this in a museum?" I respect everyone's opinions, but at the same time, it kind of makes me sad when I hear these things. People make flat-out assumptions about things they don't fully understand and could end up totally missing out on the purpose or meaning of something. In this case, these people missed out on learning about the meaning behind the painting, the stories and reflection of the painter in each line and stripe. It makes me sad that someone's lack of understanding about something could prevent them from seeing things between the lines, things that are so interesting and things that could definitely make you appreciate the thing ten times more than you initially did. Even more, it's sad that someone's disinterest in a painting could make them voice their negative opinion to influence others or make sweeping generalizations about the painter, even though they don't even mildly know the least bit behind what they've created.

Hence, is there a relationship among these perspectives? Well, I think there is. I think it depends upon your level of tolerance, your education about the subject, and the amount of interest you have in exploring the topic. What I see is that if you're interested, educated, or tolerant about a subject, you will be able to understand abstract things, like City Landscape with little thinking or some research. But if you decide to view things one-dimensionally or decide not to provoke the subject with thought, you will become infuriated with simple things and you won't be able to use your imagination or your thoughts to figure things out or come to interesting conclusions. And what if you did that? What if you always viewed things one-dimensionally? How would your life be then? I presume it would be boring. You wouldn't be able to understand complex ideas or make your own connections to contemporary or modern/abstract things. That's why I decided to take the route for the open-minded. I may not know a whole lot about a subject, but with a little bit of thought and a little bit of research, I was able to educate myself about something new and gain a whole new appreciation for contemporary art. And that, in my opinion, was well worth it.