Chaos and Classicism

I think the conceit of the show at The Guggenheim is quite interesting but that it was not executed in such a way as to emphasize the tragedy in the conflict these artist's were experiencing in trying to produce work after WWI and cubism. It might have been clearer if the Otto Dix drawings at the beginning were highlighted, or somehow made more poignant, but they were literally put to the side. Some of the works are beautiful but many of them lack a certain spark (a certain sublime element?) precisely it seems to me because of the confusion of the period. The pieces feel muddled and sometimes simply boring. I think this might have been avoided by offering them with a more sympathetic context. The lack of the Chaos (which was odd given its presence in the title) kept the works from having something they were addressing, leaving them too often to seem like merely pretty pictures.

I was additionally surprised by the decision to ignore and make no mention of the chaotic works being produced. In June of 1936, right before the Berlin Olympics, London showed the International Surrealist Exhibit and the Abstract & Concrete show. These were presenting significant and astonishing works to a new audience–most had been being produced on the Continent, although some English artists were rightly incorporated. So why not at least recognize these art movements in the text of the show? Not mentioning it seems wrong to me specifically because it reduces the context of the works and the significance in the rise of classicism.

Chaos can not be organized and so is forever spinning confusion. Classicism embraces the order and discipline of the Ancient Greek world and is a kind of stasis of its own. What is interesting about this compounded idea as a show is the way in which both provide a dead end for art. If Dada is the typical expression of Chaos, we see clearly how it fizzled of its own boredom with the constantly spontaneous. Nothing can be created, generated to last. Classicism envelops everything in so much regulation and history that the work can become a dull, too utile et dulce to provoke the senses. It is the magnetic pull of these two poles, and artists' shifting (sometimes tortured) relationship to them that produces works that make you stop as you pass by to observe, reflect, enjoy, dismiss their presentation.

Kenneth Silver is the curator of the show and known for producing wonderful shows. I understand the talk that he gave offered the show an additional slant and I wish I might have heard him speak. In part, his reputation lead me to expect more of the show but I also wonder if The Guggenheim was not an awkward place to present this show. The idea as I saw it does not allow for such continuous movement, as France, Italy, Germany, each struggled with particular issues. This is one occasion where distinct rooms might have provided the show some structure that the placards at the beginning of each section did not sufficiently offer. By nature of The Guggenheim's design, the cycling pathway, upwards or downwards, keeps you moving, but it would have been nice to want to stop more frequently.