http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2008/07/25/more_on_guernica/ Reflections on art and architecture by TIME critic Richard Lacayo. Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:49:09 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2008/07/25/more_on_guernica/comment-page-1/#comment-297 pimodan Fri, 01 Aug 2008 10:40:27 +0000 http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2008/07/25/more_on_guernica/#comment-297 I completely disagree with your thoughts, Richard, and there are some slight inaccuracies. When the Basque government has pronounced in this affair, they have often said that Gernika should be in Gernika, not in Guggenheim. Though I've never been to, Gernika is today a symbol of Basque nationalism and resistance, that represents a tension between modernism and localism very interesting. Think about the abstract sculpture Árbol de Gernika (Guernika tree), which presides Basque parlament today. Though this tension is constant in Basque modernism, from Oteiza and Chillida to Txomin Badiola and Jon Mikel Euba, I believe it is not in Picasso's Gernika, which is a prime example of the universalization of war and conflict under a Republic living his end. Now, there is a disregard of the painting claims if it is understood through the tension of localism so present in Basque art. Picasso himself stated that the painting had to hang in Prado's Museum, probably because the field of relationships that would be established because he also thought the painting as a history painting tainted with Baroque allegory. However, Reina Sofia is likely the best place to reellaborate those connections and present the painting as a document alive. For instance, the painting was presented as a totem, with no background. One of the first actions of the new director, the aforementioned Manuel Borja Villel, has been to reconstruct the exhibition context and place the painting as the center of modernism political reaction, related with Calder, Renau, Sert and even one documentary written by Buñuel. I believe that if the painting were in Gernika, many of these connections and elaborations on the painting woulb be totally impossible, and the totem would be back. The idea to see Gernika in an institution that understands culture as an integrated in the consumption and relationships of spectacle, from the building to the collection and exhibitions, like Guggenheim, is totally inadequate to the political simbolism and historic height of the painting. I sincerely can't believe myself seeing the show Armani or Hollywood Motocycles, and then passing by Gernika. That's a process of banalization very dangerous. Well, sorry about the long paragraph, and do come and see the new installation. I completely disagree with your thoughts, Richard, and there are some slight inaccuracies. When the Basque government has pronounced in this affair, they have often said that Gernika should be in Gernika, not in Guggenheim. Though I've never been to, Gernika is today a symbol of Basque nationalism and resistance, that represents a tension between modernism and localism very interesting. Think about the abstract sculpture Árbol de Gernika (Guernika tree), which presides Basque parlament today. Though this tension is constant in Basque modernism, from Oteiza and Chillida to Txomin Badiola and Jon Mikel Euba, I believe it is not in Picasso's Gernika, which is a prime example of the universalization of war and conflict under a Republic living his end. Now, there is a disregard of the painting claims if it is understood through the tension of localism so present in Basque art.
Picasso himself stated that the painting had to hang in Prado's Museum, probably because the field of relationships that would be established because he also thought the painting as a history painting tainted with Baroque allegory. However, Reina Sofia is likely the best place to reellaborate those connections and present the painting as a document alive. For instance, the painting was presented as a totem, with no background. One of the first actions of the new director, the aforementioned Manuel Borja Villel, has been to reconstruct the exhibition context and place the painting as the center of modernism political reaction, related with Calder, Renau, Sert and even one documentary written by Buñuel.
I believe that if the painting were in Gernika, many of these connections and elaborations on the painting woulb be totally impossible, and the totem would be back. The idea to see Gernika in an institution that understands culture as an integrated in the consumption and relationships of spectacle, from the building to the collection and exhibitions, like Guggenheim, is totally inadequate to the political simbolism and historic height of the painting.
I sincerely can't believe myself seeing the show Armani or Hollywood Motocycles, and then passing by Gernika. That's a process of banalization very dangerous.
Well, sorry about the long paragraph, and do come and see the new installation.

]]>