Unrelated to Elisabeth's interacting with the art (which was good), could you give me any insight into why Kelly's work is considered worthy of being in a museum? My question is based solely on the photo of his art that was in the post.
I'll try to give the short answer. Much of modern art is experimentation with primary forms (line, color, space). So what gets into museums is not necessarily beauty, but a certain kind of creativity (and having name notoriety helps a lot).
My sense is that Kelly's work made it into the museum on both counts. (Interestingly the panels are painted meticulously uniformly, such that you can't see any brush strokes, and follow a gradation from yellow through greens, purples, oranges and back to yellow - creating something like a circular spectrum.)
2 comments:
Unrelated to Elisabeth's interacting with the art (which was good), could you give me any insight into why Kelly's work is considered worthy of being in a museum? My question is based solely on the photo of his art that was in the post.
Thanks.
I'll try to give the short answer. Much of modern art is experimentation with primary forms (line, color, space). So what gets into museums is not necessarily beauty, but a certain kind of creativity (and having name notoriety helps a lot).
My sense is that Kelly's work made it into the museum on both counts. (Interestingly the panels are painted meticulously uniformly, such that you can't see any brush strokes, and follow a gradation from yellow through greens, purples, oranges and back to yellow - creating something like a circular spectrum.)
Post a Comment