‘Monet to Matisse’ Exhibition: A Look at Its Positive Elements

Perhaps because in dealing with art it is my daily business to screen out the worst and look for the best, I came away from LACMA’s “Monet to Matisse” exhibition with a much more positive opinion than Christopher Knight, whose commentary (Calendar, July 28) surprised and disturbed me.

Unlike Knight, who focused on the second-rate works, I noticed the many fine works in the show of “French Art in Southern California Collections” and welcomed the opportunity (that even someone in my profession does not always have) to see these works from private collections--moreover, to see them in a new context.

That is not to dismiss Knight’s valid point that there were many second-rate works; there were indeed several big names represented by mediocre examples. However, I think this is less a criticism of curatorial abilities or museum responsibilities than a comment on the reality of collecting in Los Angeles--a young community which looks forward not back, i.e. to the contemporary not to the historical in the arts. This is one of the reasons why an exhibition of this kind is valuable--it gives the audience a historical context for these works and shows late 19th- and early 20th-Century developments from which contemporary art today is derived.

Perhaps in Knight’s zeal to warn the “unsophisticated public” that Impressionism is not the last word, he overstated the case and did a disservice to those very people--LACMA and particularly the two talented curators who mounted this show--who are encouraging discriminating and thoughtful viewing of art in this community. I would also argue that shows such as this that involve the community lead to more and better collections, not to fewer and poorer ones.

After reading Knight’s article, I went back to the exhibition on its final day. I was pleased that there were long lines of people who wished to see this exhibition--and form their own opinions--in spite of his harsh comments. On subsequent viewing, I had some additional observations on its benefits that perhaps he overlooked.

There was great sensitivity and creativity in the installation of these works, thus we have new clues to their meaning. Rather than presenting these works as big names for big names’ sake, the curators delighted us with subtleties and insight.

While Knight did mention the strengths of the works on paper, what was unusual and refreshing was to see them hung side by side with the paintings. This gives us the rare opportunity to make comparisons about the artist’s techniques and see the artist’s thought process changing from the spontaneous drawing to intricate graphic and to the planned, finished painting.

In addition, the exhibition went beyond the chronological to give us provocative juxtapositions of works which made us look more carefully and learn things.

* To the right of Elizabeth Taylor’s Van Gogh “View of the Asylum and Chapel at Saint-Remy” (1883), hung Emile Bernard’s “The Coach at Asnieres” (1886), from the Josefowitz Collection. Rather than separating out the Van Gogh as a celebrity showpiece, the curators taught us something by putting these paintings side by side. They pointed out the way each artist used similar brush-stroke and patterning techniques to create different concepts--Van Gogh to create a strong sense of emotion, Bernard to create action.

* Even a wall of Picasso paintings, which individually are not very significant, took on deeper meaning when three works of the same period were hung together--showing us this artist’s inventive responses to a single model, Marie-Therese.

Pissarro, as Knight singled out for his “Pontoise” painting, became the quiet star of the exhibition to the discerning viewer. His work consistently holds up, and in many cases surpasses the other more celebrated masters of Impressionism. The curator’s sensitivity to his work anticipates an upcoming exhibition at LACMA which will underscore the importance of this artist through an examination of his relationship with Cezanne.

All in all, there was much to look at here and much to discover in its presentation. This exhibition did not merit Knight’s peevish tone and disrespectful vocabulary, which reduced his piece to the level of name-calling and only diminished its valid insights. Calling the show “a crock,” “overpriced wallpaper” and “an orgy of sentimental incognizance” may be sensational, but it is not responsible criticism and missed a great deal of the value in this exhibition.