Or was that Modern Abstract Art? Or was it something else entirely? Let me explain my confusion.

You see, "Modern Abstract Art" is sort of an umbrella term ... a very large umbrella term. Abstract Art is Modern by definition, and there are a number of movements that deal with abstraction. In fact, the brilliant Beth Gersh-Nesic, Contributing Writer for Modern Art, has written articles and definitions about most of them. Our cup runneth over with Abstract Art, even.

However! People aren't looking for these individual terms as much as they are looking for "Abstract Modern Art" or "Modern Abstract Art." So Beth (and did I mention that she is brilliant?) gathered up the various articles, definitions, reviews and image galleries we have that fall under the big umbrella and made everyone a handy Abstract Modern Art list.

Thanks a million, Beth--and here's hoping you just helped about a million people out with their individual web searches.

Image Credit:

Franz Kline (American, 1910-1962)
Chief, 1950
Oil on canvas. 58 3/8 x 73 1/2 in. (148.3 x 186.7 cm)
Gift of Mr. and Mrs. David M. Solinger
The Museum of Modern Art, New York
© 2010 The Franz Kline Estate / Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York

I just read an interesting article in The Guardian about a recent dispute over ownership of Michelangelo's David. The statue, initially commissioned by the Office of Works of the Duomo (in Florence), was completed by Michelangelo (a Florentine) in 1504, installed after consulting a committee of local artists including Leonardo (also Florentine) and Botticelli (ditto), and has been installed in Florence for the past 506 years. It is a singular point of pride for Florence, a city certainly not lacking for numerous points of pride.

According to the article, though, two lawyers in the Berlusconi administration have produced a nine-page document "proving" that David belongs to the Italian state and not Florence. All I can say is, "Well, then. Why stop there? Let's just "prove" that David belongs to the entire world, shall we?" (In other words, I'm firmly in the Florentine camp on this.)

Your thoughts?

Image Caption:

Restoration work on Michelangelo's masterpiece David is completed May 24, 2004 at the Galleria dell'Accademia in Florence, Italy. The work has taken a painstaking two years to complete with the statue going on show to the public May 25. Photo © Franco Origlia/Getty Images

Earlier this summer, Beth Gersh-Nesic, Contributing Writer for Modern Art, spent a very happy Study Day at the Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute in Williamstown, Massachusetts. It wasn't just the beautiful Berkshire campus setting, or the gorgeous public galleries, or even the Clark's research building (which has a library to die for). It was the fact that Beth was in the company of, on this particular Study Day, a roomful of Modernism experts who specialize in Pablo Picasso and Edgar Degas. The topic under discussion: the myriad ways in which Picasso connected his art to that of Degas, as explored in the exhibition Picasso Looks at Degas.

After an entire day of scholarly bliss, Beth mentioned that she barely noticed the hours' long drive home. She was floating on a cloud of Picasso, and scanning her mental database for quotes from Pablo's Parisian poet pal, André Salmon (about whom Beth has written a book), supporting the Degas connection. Her review, she said, practically wrote itself. The exhibition was so sublime that she just returned to the Clark leading a tour group from the Greater NYC area. For your full consideration then, please have a look at her thought-provoking review "Playing Degas, Probing Picasso," and its accompanying image gallery.

Image Credit:

Pablo Picasso (Spanish, 1881-1973)
The Blue Room (The Tub), 1901
Oil on canvas
50.5 x 61.6 cm
Acquired 1927 (1554)
The Phillips Collection, Washington, D.C.
© 2010 Estate of Pablo Picasso / Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York

Abstract Expressionist New York will open on October 3, 2010 at The Museum of Modern Art, New York, and I can't wait. Seriously, unless it's hung haphazardly--and it most assuredly won't be--there is no possible way to make this exhibition a dud. Think: Birthplace of Abstract Expressionism/New York School, combined with a huge collection of AbEx works, topped with documentary materials out of the ginormous MoMA archives. (And maybe some whipped cream, chopped nuts and a cherry flourish.)

You know? The harder I look at Abstract Expressionism, the closer I get to actually understanding it. Currently, it seems like primal scream therapy to me, in that the artists just wanted to "let it all hang out;" inner demons, emotional baggage and, not least, responses to the worst acts of violence, death and mass destruction ever known to humankind, WWII.

Take, for example, Willem de Kooning's Woman I (1950-52), pictured here. Of the many women from his Woman series, she terrifies me the most. She looks fully capable of eating small Dutch boys for brunch, developing the atomic bomb over her afternoon, piloting the Enola Gay in the evening, and wrapping up her day by mating and killing the hapless sperm donor. This woman is fierce, and not in a good way. AbEx is full of interpretations, but the artists never make it easy for the rest of us. In fact, they often seem to go out of their respective ways to make us think ... and perhaps that was the whole point?

In any case, please try to catch this show if you can. To whet your appetite, we have a fraction of the +/- 300 works from Abstract Expressionist New York in this image gallery, courtesy of MoMA.