SFMOMA

Amalia and I went to SFMOMA today. It was my first visit in awhile, so it was the first time I saw the foyer stripped of all the ticket selling clutter, the first time I saw the Lichtenstein show, and the first time I saw the rehang of the permanent collection. As I have to finish a restaurant review for the newspaper, and I am suffering from some digestive malaise, undoubtedly caused by my own indiscretion with regards to acidic things (should have avoided the onion jam on my grilled ham and fontina panini at the Caffe Museo, at least so soon after the company holiday party and the amazing chorizo and bean soup we made last night), I will be brief.

Also, Amalia was in quick view mode when it came to the permanent collection (at least until we hit a Joan Brown painting with two dogs in it) and the Lichtenstein, I did not get the full absorbtion that I like to get before really evaluating an exhibit.

First, the foyer: it looks great. I love the SFMOMA building, and I particularly like the space that greets you when you walk through the doors. Now, I am a member, so I never have to wait outside for tickets (members still get theirs inside), so perhaps if I waited twenty minutes in the wind and rain sometime I would sing a different tune, but it is great to have this open space so, well, open.

Second, the fifth floor (contemporary art): mostly silly stuff, including an installation that I thought had been euthanized years ago. A whole room of Kara Walker, which is about as essential to an art museum as a diet of gravel and arsenic is to good digestion. One of my favorite Jay DeFeo paintings (Insision), which is baffling, seeing as how her contemporaries are hung downstairs (I think that, since SFMOMA holds one of her two important paintings, they are trying to boost her cache, which is a dumb idea. Those two paintings are great, but she is a minor painter. Let's appreciate the few good and the two great works she did and not try to boost her into something else). Now, I was being rushed through, so I did not read the criteria for inclusion, so maybe it made sense.

Third, the exhibit on design, architecture and fashion: a few good pieces but mostly fluff.

Four, the Lichtenstein: nothing here to change my evaluation of his most famous works: overrated. He finally started doing some interesting paintings in the 1980's, when he explored the ideas of surrealism, and was really on to something in his last years, but the cartoon frames wear thin. Really thin.

Five, the permanent collection: I always applaud good placement of Diebenkorns, and we get two outstanding paintings in this one. Why do we need even one Newman, though? And where are the Ryman's and Arneson's? Also, SFMOMA does not have a great Picasso, so why put the minor works they have right in the front? Matisse was a better painter anyway. There I said it. I love Picasso, but Matisse is ultimately the more important painter.

Six, do we really need all that photography? Why not just put it in a book and let people browse. I actually like photography, but have generally never gotten along with photographers, so this might just be a personal grudge. Still, way too much space devoted to photomechanical stuff.