Museum of Fine Arts Thesis Exhibit

Mark Wetter
April 24, 2009
U H 440: Domain of the Arts
Review #2: Museum of Fine Arts Thesis Exhibit

Finding Significance in the Abstract

Artists have the freedom of choosing to express aesthetic qualities or meaning in their art. The Chris Jordan exhibit was an obvious display of social messages criticizing our overconsumption and material needs. Most of his work was lacking aesthetically. However I found it satisfying since it fulfilled my desire to understand and extract meaning from the art. On the other hand, the thesis exhibit presented artwork that was the opposite. I was rarely able to conclude the purpose or inspiration for producing the art and it was difficult to connect the title with the artwork. Despite being so abstract and obscure, I thought that the artists were creative and I left the museum feeling like I was aesthetically satisfied.
For the sake of transcribing my thoughts of the MFA exhibit into this review, I had to push aside my normal tendency to view art primarily through aesthetic appeal. This was obviously difficult since the meaning is not easily communicated like a Chris Jordan. Attempting to discover the source for the artwork sadly detracted from my overall appreciation of the exhibit. Instead of finding insight in the art, I walked away from most pieces feeling disappointed because I had no idea what I had just observed. Nonetheless, I would still consider it art since my negative experience is still an experience. John Dewey emphasized the importance of the viewer experience. Abstract art produces an experience like any other style of art, just through different means. I would, however, oppose the film exposition titled “Sailor” by Tobias Walther, since it does not produce a pure aesthetical experience. It is “adultered” by appealing to more than one sense.
I particularly enjoyed the digitalized work by Heather Losey McGeachy. I didn’t fully comprehend the essence of any of her works, but they were appealing aesthetically. I was thoroughly confused by her “Thirsty River” and “Riverside” productions. Despite having titles indicating water, there was no blue. I think that the abstractness of her work was expressed by using colors that normally do not apply to the image being portrayed. Both “Thirsty River” and “Riverside” had bright yellow and orange colors. Perhaps she was intending to pigment it abstractly to represent the turbulence of a river, or maybe it could be hinting at the reflective property of water. Possibly these images represent a sunset or sunrise reflecting against the surface of the water.
My favorite piece of art would be “Untitled”, the tree with white Buddha leaves instead of normal leaves. The abstract characteristics were the white leaves, the Buddha image on the leaves, and the pillows surround the base of the tree. This tree represents the link between Buddhism and the natural world. The pillows protect the Buddha leaves from falling to the ground, representing fragility. Trees go through seasonal changes, which could be interpreted as the fluctuations that Buddhism has and will experience. Even though my own interpretation could be wrong, I was happy that I found a piece that was aesthetically appealing and interpretable.
Despite the aesthetical appreciation I had for the abstract exhibition, there is an enormous clarity issue. Tolstoy would probably argue that the exhibition lacked “clearness with which the feeling is transmitted” (Sam’s handout). Sincerity and individuality of emotion is definitely visible, but the variation in interpretation makes the exhibition subject to criticism by Tolstoy’s philosophy. As Kevin pointed out, I also felt like a child trying to see images in the 3D abstract pictures. Even though it is fun and appealing to see such unusual images, it becomes frustrating if you can’t see what the author intended.