Two Thursdays ago, I toured the T. Murakami exhibition at the Cleveland Museum of Art (CMA) and photographed some of the visual experiences.
I particularly examined the surfaces of the paintings and objects, something that I had always wanted to do IRL. The surfaces were very slick, almost like a painted car, in acrylic (see the photo with the glare at the upper left-hand corner).
Every painting that I read about was in acrylic, which was also interesting — some gold leaf, pencil, etc.
I also took some photos that I thought accurately reflected the visual experience of looking at the paintings and the exhibition, but the photos are not the same as IRL.
The photos of the paintings on a computer display actually look better than the paintings IRL, I must say. The whites radiate much more on a computer display than from the reflected surfaces on exhibit, for example.
My memory of the whites is that they were gray by comparison than the online photos that I am looking at now.
But that's just how I see things. I barely see anything else but light intensity and color. My brain is otherwise completely empty, under ideal conditions.
It was such a pleasure to see these pieces IRL. I feel like half my life is complete now. When I look at the photographs, all I want to do is go back to the show (now closed).
As a painter, I really need to look at the painting closely and I imagine how it had been painted. And then there is this clear acrylic lacquer-type coating over everything.
The paintings are over 20 years old, and need to be protected. And varnishes have been applied to all manner of painting surfaces.
This forces one to ask: Is a painting an image, a two dimensional surface, or a sculpture?
Yes, it is a hilly surface.
But then you take photographs of it, and then it becomes a perfectly flat image.
On a computer display, the image radiates light.
The painting object itself reflects light.
Skulls were my favorite.
#painting #murakami #cleveland #cma