As a teenager visiting the Metropolitan Museum of Art for the first time, it was neither Goya nor Rembrandt who stopped me in my tracks but the haunting work of Alberto Giacometti. That’s when I met “Annette” (1961), a late portrait of the artist’s wife, who’s pictured in a terrifying emulsion of expressive brushwork and gray paint.
What continues to shock me about this painting is how innocent Annette looks when compared with the aesthetic violence that Giacometti has crowded around her figure. The irony is clear: Giacometti’s work is less an excavation of his sitters’ interior lives than it is a projection of his own chauvinistic fear of emasculation.
A decade later, that’s the same message I received when visiting the Guggenheim’s masterfully subtle reintroduction of the artist, simply titled Giacometti. Co-curated by the museum’s Megan Fontanella and Catherine Grenier, director of the Fondation Giacometti, the retrospective exposes the sculptor’s insecurities through sly juxtapositions between male and female figures, sculptures of women standing and women dismembered, cubist skulls and stabbed-through heads.
Although Giacometti is best-known for his bronze sculptures, I found his plaster works more unsettling for their cottage cheese whiteness. More malleable than bronze, plaster allows the artist to scar his figures with unprecedented disfigurement. Notice how the face of “Woman with Chariot”(ca. 1945) is virtually nonexistent. It reminds me of the deformed clay busts featured in Deborah Castillo’s “Slapping Power” (2015/18) at Smack Mellon, which I wrote about last week. Castillo’s defacement of two male busts represented a violent reproach to the misogyny that so often vanishes women from art history. Seeing his work through this context, we might easily regard Giacometti as one of the great vanishers of women.
Looking at Giacometti’s “Surrealist Head” (1934), I have a very basic question for the artist: Why create to destroy? He goes through the trouble to draw eyes and a mouth on the skull just to stab it. What intense animosity motivates an adult to do such a thing?
At certain angles, the spindly legs of Giacometti’s figures look like prison bars. I wonder why the modernist narrative still championed by museums like Guggenheim and MoMA insists on cherishing male aggression as an asset. For me, “Three Men Walking (Small Square)“ (1949) reads as a sculpture of museum directors stuck in a closed loop of thinking, devoted to perpetuating the myth that gives them power.
As art history buffs on the app have pointed out, both movements attribute meaning to the meaningless.
Multiple posts about the film have been taken down on Twitter, many of them following the government’s removal requests.
Located in Des Moines, Iowa, this residency for emerging and established artists includes studio and living space, a $1,000 monthly stipend, and more.
This week, blonde hair supremacy, Salman Rushdie’s new novel, and why do boutique shops all look the same?
Fayneese Miller is under fire after the school failed to renew the contract of an adjunct who showed artworks depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad.
Hundreds of visitors were evacuated from the Incan site over the weekend.
The artist’s works resonate in West Texas, where the story of dehumanized and exploited migrant laborers is tangible and ever-present.
Fully-funded teaching assistantships are standard for MFA students at the top-ranked, flagship research university in the state of New York.
A posthumous show of Price’s work is curated by James Hart of Phil Space, the self-proclaimed “gallerist of death.”
She has raised generations of Bay Area artists and changed the local landscape with her public artworks, colleagues tell Hyperallergic.
Saim Sadiq’s crushing debut, the first Pakistani film to be shortlisted for the Oscars, is imbued with a crisis of space.
Asma Naeem’s appointment comes in the wake of a tumultuous period for the institution.