Guggenheim Bilbao
June 28, 2012
The Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao is
like an enormous golden flower blooming by the side of a bridge upon a river. I suppose it would have been a great idea in
Norway or Sweden, where the light is muted, where the reflection off of Frank
Gehry’s metallic surfaces would have shone on to the surroundings, bringing sunlight
into a somber, subdued, darkening winter afternoon. But the Guggenheim is in Bilbao, where the
light is a flat white, where there are hardly any shadows, where trees do not
line the riverbank, where what one longs for is not glitering golden metallic
surfaces reflecting the heat from the pavement and radiating it back on to
unsuspecting passersby already wilting under the sun. I don’t
know why Gehry chose to build such a monstrosity here of all places.
Why did he choose this particular
style of building in a place like Los Angeles (for its Symphony Hall) or for
Bilbao, where heat and light are scarcely in demand, where what one longs for
is shade and muted colors? Where the sun
already blinds you so that you don’t need an over-large, shiny, metallic object
towering over you and zapping you with concentrated heat rays?
Modern Bilbao to me looked like a
city made by a child out of blocks of Lego.
In fact, now that the city is striving to meet Gehry half way, decorating
the bridge next to the museum with a bright red screen that looks exactly like a
large Logo block, the place looks more like Disneyland than a real city. Perhaps they did get that bright red object
out of Legoland, in Germany. Everything
in Bilbao is metallic, even the benches at the bust stop, where I nearly got
second degree burns on my bottom by sitting down in my sundress. The temperature outside was 40 degrees centigrade
even though it was only June.
Everything looked washed out,
preposterously artificial and unnatural.
And to top this illusion of technology and space age, there stood in
front of the Guggenheim museum a sculpture of a puppy dog so garish and large,
it made Gehry’s building look diminutive, if such a thing were even possible. Why a puppy dog? Why in front of the museum? Was the idea to make the preposterously large
building appear small? Was the aim to
humanize it in some way? I really have
no idea, not having read anything about it since it was first built.
The fact that the dog was made of
real plants growing real flowers in yellow and white and red did not make it
any less unnatural. I am not sure who
was trying to play a joke on whom. Did
someone deliberately try to give the finger to Gehry by allowing this hideous
creature to tower over his masterpiece?
Or did the city of Bilbao just throw its hands up in the air and say,
“We want to be famous, at any cost, even if it is just for our grotesque public
monuments.”
Looking at the museum and the dog, I
couldn’t help thinking of San Francisco, in gratitude. Our symphony hall and our library are, in
comparison, modest and tasteful. Even
the De Young Museum, which almost no one I know likes because of its upside
down shape and because it looks like a building still under construction, is
not as overpowering as Guggenheim Bilbao. Its steel mesh construction blends into the trees of Golden Gate Park.
For me the effect of Bilbao was silly,
gaudy, irreverent, and ultimately, unaesthetic.
Much of modern art is like that, I
suppose. I struggle to understand it,
and then give up. If it doesn’t appeal
to me immediately, I wonder why I should bother with it.
Inside was an exhibit by a painter
named David Hockney. I knew nothing
about him. In the first gallery were his
outlandishly large paintings of Yosemite valley made on an I-Pad. The colors were unreal, the proportions too
huge. You had to step way away to get
any perspective on the pictures. But
then I saw a movie about him in the hallway; watched him stand in the cold
English countryside – he is from Yorkshire – and try to paint the branch of
a tree over and over again. It was then I got fascinated by him. In my
eye, I was still seeing the realistic, mystical impressionist paintings I had
seen in the D’Orsay only a week or two ago.
Comparing them with Hockney’s garish colors and larger than life
canvases was hard at first.
But when I went into the gallery
displaying his Yorkshire paintings, I got mesmerized. For he had painted the same grove of trees,
the same road, the same canopies, over and over again, to reflect the different
textures and colors and hues of different seasons. What I loved about Hockney’s work was his
dedication to the observation of nature, and to trees in particular. I recalled the group of painters I had met at
the Mission in San Juan Batista (made famous by Hitchcock in Vertigo) on way to
Pinnacles recently, who explained to me the French Plein Air movement
started by the impressionists.
Apparently, with the advent of paints in tubes, as opposed to the age
old method of mixing them and grinding them from raw materials, and the
invention of the steam engine, painters
discovered a new freedom. They could now travel to places on trains, paint outdoors, and create their visions of nature, while before, they had
strictly drawn portraits. This was how
the impressionist movement began. But
the fact that the original movement still survives was new to me. I wanted to
join the group and make sketches of beautiful places (I can do a decent sketch,
particularly from a photograph). One of
the old ladies, who had been an art teacher, told me it was acceptable to paint
or draw from photographs, in fact, in the beginning stages, that is what they
want you to do. So I might do this when
I get back to California.
I thought David Hockney has created a
new impressionist movement of the twenty first century, one that relies on,
what else, technology of course, but one that encourages us to see art and
nature with the new millennium’s eye.
That is quite a feat. He uses
composites of photographs, I-Pad drawings, and other techniques, painting parts of a landscape on multiple canvases and then putting them all
together. His work is very technical in
some ways, he breaks it down into recognizable pieces so the mystery is
gone. At the same time, one wonders how he can keep such massive pieces into his head in order to be able to integrate them.
The other exhibits at the Guggenheim were not worthwhile
but I got inspired by David Hockney. I
felt as I had felt when I had first gone to the Modern Art Museum in the
Smithsonian, right after graduating from Berkeley, and seen works by Alexander Calder, Salvador Dali,
Paul Klee, and Miro. I didn’t like all
of them, but I began to understand what they were trying to do. When I went to the Andy Warhol Museum in
Pittsburgh (he was born there but never wanted to acknowledge it), I began to
understand him a little more too.
So David Hockney introduced me to a
new dimension of art. His paintings slowly grew on me and mesmerized
me until I wanted to be in that room, surrounded by the large canvases,
forever. It was as thrilling as being
lost in a real forest.