I just recently became familiar with the work of the abstract expressionist Joan Mitchell. I started receiving Art News a few months ago and there always seems to be some advertisements for an exhibition of her work at this or that gallery. The truth is, I was immeditely troubled by her work. Not because of its power but because of its absolute lack of any quality whatsoever. I have searched the pieces for a developing aestheitic, a sense of rhythm, or anything resembling what I understand to be art. I have found nothing.
I think Mitchell is the perfect example of how modern art gets a bad name. She gives fuel to any naysayer that wants to illustrate a point about the meaninglessness of modern works.
It is not as if I need a pretty picture to appreciate art. Art is often just something you recognize when you see it, and even if it is not to your personal liking then you can at least understand what someone else might see in it. I get none of that with Mitchell.
To compare her to the most famous of the arstract expressionists, Jackson Pollack, is a fair comparison. Pollack is often the subject of derision for his "drip" paintings. Often he is used as an example for what is wrong with modern art. However, I defy anyone not to see rhythm in his work, not to accept that there is a mindfulness to the patterns. It is not as if I believe that Pollack went into his work with a deliberation of concept in his mind, but I can accept and apprecate his in-the-moment stlye. At least in Pollack you can see a developing aesthetic. In Mitchell I have found nothing to develop other than confusion.
The reason that I even put this tirade on my blog is not because I want to be cruel to Mitchell or her work, but rather I want to understand what I can not understand about her work. If this work is as accepted as it seems to be then someone is finding something in it. What is it? What am I missing?
By the way, you can see her work at the Cheim and Read Gallery in NYC.
Posted by Paul Hina at May 27, 2005 10:48 AM