Tibetan Contemporary Art at the Rubin

I have a few other posts on the back burner, one of which sadly has been there for over a month. But, in the meantime, Art Radar Asia, one of the premier blogs on goings on in the world of contemporary Asian art, reports today on an exhibition of contemporary Tibetan art at the Rubin Museum, the first such show in New York City ever.

I won’t go through the works one by one (not least of all because I feel awkward pulling too many images from a single source like that without permission)… I invite you to go look at the post on Art Radar Asia’s own page, consider the images, and read the comments by New York Times art critic Ken Johnson.

I’m certainly familiar with the name, though I have never really managed to keep track of which critics I do and don’t like, or which critics tend to say what sort of things. Reading his comments on these works, in which he basically criticizes all of them for not going far enough, I think that perhaps the main thing it comes down to is the amount of experience or exposure of the viewer. Ken Johnson has seen a lot of art in his day, and so it takes more to surprise, shock, or impress him. And that’s not his fault; one can only write from one’s own experience, one’s own impressions.

Johnson sums up by stating that it is paradoxical that the “freedoms granted by modern art and culture” do not generate much imagination in the show’s artists, who still cling onto that classic Tibetan style of art that has existed “hundreds of years prior to the 20th century.” He conveys a hope that in future Rubin shows he will discover some Tibetan artists with “adventurous minds.”

But I, and most other people viewing these works I should think, have not seen quite so much art, and are more easily impressed. I have a particular fondness for works which draw upon traditional elements, traditional motifs and styles, relating back to the artist’s culture and speaking to complex meanings and themes from her culture. Anyone can make acultural, pan-national, abstract “modern” art like, say, Mondrian or Damien Hirst. Only a Tibetan can produce these kinds of works, that explicitly refer to complex Buddhist meanings and themes, utilizing in some cases traditional mineral pigments and other traditional media, methods, and styles.

I think that, to the contrary of what Johnson has to say, these works show incredible imagination, and that all of these artists demonstrate that they have very adventurous minds. These works are not the classic Tibetan style of art that has existed for hundreds of years. What we saw in the Bhutanese art exhibit (“The Dragon’s Gift“) – that is a classic Bhutanese (extremely similar to Tibetan) style of art that has existed, more or less unchanged, for hundreds of years. Take a look at the Rubin Museum’s Collections webpage. Those are traditional mandalas in the fully classic style. Now look again at the works on the Art Radar Asia blog page. These are very modern, very experimental, imaginative, and adventurous new works making reference to or making use of those classic motifs, themes, and methods.

The exhibition at the Rubin Museum is up until October 18. I will have to be sure to see it while I am in NY in October.

Read Full Post »

The Dragon’s Gift: The Sacred Arts of Bhutan

I had been eagerly awaiting the opportunity to see this exhibit for many months. I don’t remember when or where I first heard about it, but after seeing the Bhutan displays at the Smithsonian Folklife Festival this summer, I was really psyched to learn more about this tiny, obscure Himalayan kingdom, with its beautiful traditions and colorful arts. I was entranced by the prayer flags whipping about in the wind, the architectural and artistic beauty and intricacies of a Buddhist temple building, and by the cham dancers with animal masks and kerchiefs fluttering as they whirled around and around.

But the exhibit at the Rubin, I am sorry to say, had none of that energy, and was little different from any other (Tibetan/Himalayan) Buddhist art exhibit I have seen before. I understand the difficulties in building an entire temple building inside the museum; they did have one shrine room, complete with praying monks, but it was impossible to see in, and rather than sitting in the back as one might do in a real Buddhist temple, feeling a part of it, and yet not an interference, the way this room was organized, the crowd of museum visitors was forced to jostle for position to peek in through the one doorway – voyeurs, not participants; invaders, not guests.

Given the monks in residence, the shrine room, the weaver in residence, the Cham dances which were conducted across the city for a week or so last month (I sorely regret missing that), The Dragon’s Gift was supposed to be a major major event. This is the most major exhibit of Bhutanese art ever outside Bhutan, and most of the objects displayed are on loan from temples where they remain active objects of worship. … But for me, for the average visitor coming in on an average day during the span of the exhibit, that energy, that sense of experiencing a truly rare opportunity, was not there.

The Museum itself is gorgeous, far nicer than I might have imagined, evoking the same aesthetic of other 21st century museums I have been to. A spiral staircase in the center links all the floors, and there is a very nice café as well… though on the surveys we were asked to fill out upon entering, we were asked “to what extent did you visit in order to experience a calm, meditative Buddhist environment?”, or something to that effect. And while the museum certainly is as quiet and calm and conducive to meditation as any other museum, if they really wanted to create a unique, special, and distinctive environment, perfectly suited for viewing these works as they should be seen, they should have designed the entire interior of the building (or at least one floor) to emulate that of a Tibetan monastery. As the majority of “Himalayan art” is religious art, it should be viewed in the proper context – that of a Buddhist temple/monastery setting.

That said, the Museum is beautifully designed and organized, and does a fine job of introducing the visitor to Himalayan art, to the aesthetics, iconography, and meanings. A permanent exhibit called What Is It? uses rotating art objects and excellent gallery labels to introduce the newcomer to the subject.

I was particularly taken, however, by an exhibit of black-and-white photos of Nepal, displayed on the lower level. Here was a view of the realities of 1970s-80s Kathmandu, a glimpse at all of the things about life in Nepal that Buddhist sculpture and mandala paintings would never reveal. The mix of modern/Western and traditional architecture, the state of repair of the buildings, the dustiness of the streets… the smiles of the children, their Michael Jackson T-shirts and framed photographs of the Dalai Lama.

My first visit to the Rubin may have been a disappointment in some respects, but I feel confident that at the appropriate time they will have an exhibition of photos of Bhutan, of the country’s architecture, music, dance, and other arts. And that while the exhibition itself may have been a disappointment today, the building overall has an energy, a spirit, that is very warm, beautiful, and welcoming. I think it a wonderful thing that we have such a museum of Himalayan art in the City, and I think they have done nothing wrong; they will continue to do great work, and I look forward to visiting again.

Read Full Post »