Abstract Expressionist New York at the Art Gallery of Ontario

Concept: 2 out of 5
Execution: 4 out of 5
Yeah, but: Everything's bigger in New York.

The Long Version: I've always wanted to be able to say: "Well, when I saw this show in New York, ____________" and now I finally can. Almost. While they're both called Abstract Expressionist New York, the AGO exhibit has the tagline "Masterpieces from the Museum of Modern Art". That's a subtle but important difference between the Art Gallery of Ontario and the MoMA show, from which the AGO takes all of its multimedia. I'll return to that at the end of this review.

The AGO's AbExNY show is nicely put together, with large information cards at the base of each painting. These can be read from anywhere in front of the art, and provide information about the artist and perhaps a bit about their work. This is a vast improvement over the little 5x7" cards on the wall that need people to come right up to read them, and must be a huge part of why the AGO's guards were so relaxed. Now I wonder why it hasn't always been done that way.

The larger rooms have carpeting with a metre-wide hard border on their perimeter, which is a nice way of enforcing a respectful distance. Smaller rooms with wooden floors have the traditional calf-high rope barrier to identify the art – a cue that's often appreciated for modern works – and ensure that it remains unperturbed. Photographing any art is explicitly prohibited by the AGO, but I didn't see that ban enforced in any of the many times that I saw it being broken.

The two biggest stars of abstract expressionism must be Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko. Rothko is represented by two of his surrealist works, three of his brighter paintings, and three from his darker period. The lighting in his room was nicely done, with a lower ambient level that let the colourful paintings be brightly lit while the more somber ones were allowed to be darker. It was both sensitive and suitable. It's just a pity that the seating in the centre of the room is too uncomfortable to spend quality time on.

Given Rothko's appeal – his was by far the most crowded room, both in Toronto and New York – and the scale of his work, it makes sense that these are among the largest canvases in the show. It was Rothko's work that first caught my interest and introduced me to colour field art, and it is worth the price of admission just to see these six paintings.

The other headliner of the collection, Jackson Pollock, is likewise given a room to himself – his wife is left to wait outside – and is also represented by a good range of work. My tastes have always run toward minimalism, so Pollock's not a good fit for me, but this is still a room that's worth spending a lot of time in. The seats here are considerably more comfortable than those in the Rothko display.

The AGO's AbEx exhibit spans from the late 1940's to the end of the 1960's, and while the headliners of Rothko and Pollock are clearly the stars of the show, there's a sampling of other works from their contemporaries as well. Some of these stray into surrealism or recognizable subjects, but for the most part the focus is confined to a slice of time and geography that won't disappoint anyone looking for the popular abstract expressionist art. If this sounds like you, and you're within striking distance of Dundas and McCaul, it's worth spending an hour or two at the AGO.

And really, that concludes my review of AbEx:AGO, and writing it has stressed my knowledge of art far too much already. If what I've already written sounds good, you will like the AGO's Abstract Expressionist show. It's the reason why I bought an AGO membership, and have gone to see the collection three times in its first two weeks. I've been quite happy with the AGO's accomplishment of having the art moved to Toronto for the summer, but that's not quite my only reaction. What follows is merely a wildly impractical and personal reaction, unfounded supposition, and general nonsense.

When I saw the Abstract Expressionist show in New York, it was huge. An entire floor of MoMA had been devoted to it, where the art spanned a wider range and went into a greater depth. On my first visit to the AGO's AbEx show I found myself looking for the rest of it. ("Nope, that's the gift shop.") The AGO exhibit, as exceptional as it is, is clearly a travelling show. I can't help but feel that display space, transportation, and insurance value all played a huge part in the art selection process.

The exhibition in New York gave Barnett Newman a room to himself that was dominated by massive canvasses, while the AGO has only a few of his smaller and narrower paintings. As good as Abraham is, it's no substitute for Vir Heroicus Sublimis. In Toronto Jackson Pollock is also represented by mostly smaller canvases that simply don't convey the same impression as the bigger paintings carry in their home city. Perhaps perversely, I found myself disappointed that one of Rothko's smaller peices from MoMA's display – an untitled work in grey and black, with a white border – didn't make the trip. Some people are just never satisfied.

Likewise Cy Twombly and Jasper Johns are nowhere to be found, and while I recognize that Johns mostly lies outside of the scope of abstract expressionism, his gesture paintings were included in New York and would have been a great challenge to the Pollock/Rothko pairing. At the same time, the AGO has devoted two large walls to small framed photographs from Aaron Siskind, Harry Callahan, and others. While these are worth seeing, they're not why anyone is coming to Abstract Expressionist New York. On the positive side, they're framed with such reflective glass that looking at the photos is a great way to see the rest of the show.

While it may seem churlish of me to compare an exhibition drawn from MoMA's vast collection to the display that they sent to another nation, the AGO invites the comparison by using the multimedia from the MoMA exhibit. Have a look at those videos for a glimpse of the scope and depth that was offered in New York – the "Masterpieces from the Museum of Modern Art" isn't quite the same. I'm thrilled to have such a great collection so close to home, even if it's only for the summer, but doesn't replace a trip to New York and its many exceptional galleries. My advice: do both.

last updated 7 june 2011

NBC Studio Tour @ 30 Rockefeller Plaza

Concept:  2 out of 5
Execution:  1 out of 5
Yeah, but:  Spotting NBC talent is rare, but not impossible!

The Long Version: When the ticket-taker said "wait there" and waved indistinctly down a hallway that curved out of sight, I should have realized that we were in trouble. True, disinterested and unhelpful people abound in New York in general, and its service/tourist industry in particular, but I shouldn't have been so jaded that I missed the warning signs. So perhaps in some way I'm responsible for what came later, but even while standing unattended behind a rope I still didn't see it coming. What happened next was the NBC Studio Tour, and yes, the fact that I can't link into its website in a way that avoids the animated intro should be yet another warning. But it's too late now, so let's proceed.

The NBC tour at 30 Rockefeller Plaza starts with the tour group shuffling into a small auditorium to watch a promotional video. While inside, we're told of the many upcoming delights of our visit - like no bathrooms, anywhere inside the NBC complex - and are sternly admonished to turn off our cell phones. "Not vibrate, not silent, not airplane mode: OFF." There's also Strictly No Photography, because everything we're about to see is "highly copyrighted". (That's the exact phrase that appears in their FAQ web page, which I can't link to.) I wasn't aware that copyright comes in different levels, but since NBC was recently fined millions of dollars for pirating someone else's intellectual property, maybe they know what they're talking about. Or perhaps, like some other image-based companies, they think that adding a superlative to the correct term will impress people.

With fifteen minutes of our hour-long tour now past, we were marshaled into a long queue for our security screening. Blogger Bob himself would be proud of its combination of intrusiveness and unpleasantness; if anything, the TSA screeners are more friendly and personable. The studio prohibits anything that the FAA won't allow on an aircraft, so forget about bringing that toner cartridge, but they also ban children under the age of six "for security reasons." I never realized that a preschooler could actually be used as a weapon, which must have some pretty serious ramifications for Disneyland.

Once cleared through security, the next challenge was the elevators. Our sizable group used two of them, which explained the two tour guides, and this was by far the most crowded I'd felt in the entire visit to New York. On the positive side, doing head counts and trying to squeeze everyone in provided the biggest spark of genuine enthusiasm that I saw from our guides throughout the tour. I don't know if this is because there's a betting pool going on in the staff room, or if there's a precedent of people sneaking off - I wasn't inclined to ask, and both options seem plausible.

The tour doesn't follow any established route, so it's impossible to say where it goes next. As the unlinkable FAQ points out, the building is "a very active working environment", so the tour is sent to whatever area has the least likelihood of having anything interesting happening. Not surprisingly, that turned out to be the stage for Saturday Night Live. More specifically, it turned out to be the glassed-in corridor above the bleachers for the live studio audience - but at least the hall was lined with photos, so there was a chance of seeing a publicity photo of someone famous as we hustled past. This explains why that wonderful FAQ page says that "spotting NBC talent is rare but not impossible" - although I doubt that they meant it as a double entendre.

Back through the elevators again and we're rewarded by being able to look through the glass of a dimmed control room, get shown an outdated video loop about makeup for SNL, and then the tour concludes with an audience-participation exercise involving a mock broadcast and some painful moments with a teleprompter and green-screen. There's also the mandatory souvenir prom-photo moment, with prints and DVDs available for purchase at the end of the tour.

We both felt a little stunned as we walked away from the NBC Studio Experience. I was certainly thinking it, but Penny was the first to say it out loud: "Thank Gosh for the New York Pass." That's the flat-rate tourist pass that we were using to see the city, and it meant that we hadn't actually handed over $20 - each - for the tour. I still think about all of the other things we could have done with the time, but at least that's all we were burned for.

But who knows? Maybe other people loved it; maybe it's the perfect moment for someone out there somewhere. Just because it wasn't right for me, and just because I can't conceive of who would really find this tour worth its time and expense doesn't mean that it couldn't happen. If this sounds like you, then please, please, please add a comment to say so. And never let it be said that I'm not an optimist.

last updated 29 dec 2010

Radio City Music Hall Stage Door Tour

Concept:  2 out of 5
Execution:  4 out of 5
Yeah, but:  I may just be really lucky.

The Long Version: I'll admit that a tour of the Radio City Music Hall wasn't high on my list of things to do while on my honeymoon in New York City. I recognized the hall as a landmark when I walked by, and have some idea who the Rockettes are, but otherwise wouldn't have gone out of my way to see the interior. What a mistake that would have been - and her wanting to do the Stage Door tour is yet another example of how my wife is smarter than I am. I have no problem admitting that.

I know that I'm lucky, and in this case we were able to take the tour with a very small group. Our guide, Shannon, was exceptional: bright, interested, and involved in the life of the theatre. There was never that horrible reading-from-a-cue-card feeling, and she cheerfully answered any questions that our small-but-enthusiastic group had. I felt like I saw a lot of the building, and came away with an interest in its history that I never would have considered before. When Penny and I go back to New York, we'll probably make it just a little later in the year than our last trip just so that we can go back and see the Rockettes perform. After meeting one of the dancers in person, and getting a glimpse of their rehearsal, how could we not?

Photography is permitted through most of the tour, but I really don't have anything that captured the magnitude of some of the interior spaces. The tour itself lasted over an hour, but I can't say exactly how long because I was never inclined to look at my watch. Instead I just enjoyed myself and wandered along in amazement. After a crushingly bad experience elsewhere in the Rockefeller Center, the Radio City Stage Door tour restored much of my faith in the whole guided-tour tourist experience. Seeing a show at the Music Hall will be mandatory for the next time we're in New York, and we'll probably take the tour again as well.

last updated 28 dec 2010

MoMA Ball Bearing Key Chain

Concept:  2 out of 5
Execution:  3 out of 5
Yeah, but:  If it hangs on a wall it’s a painting, and if you can walk around it it’s a sculpture.

The Long Version: Ball bearings are nifty things. The MoMA store - Museum of Modern Art, New York - is also nifty. Its website is where I first found the Mighty Wallet, of which I now own seven, and it also features the Ball Bearing Keychain. When I was in New York MoMA was one of my obligatory stops, but I hesitated before spending the not-insignificant cash to buy one of these iconic keychains. Eventually I rationalized it as a souvenir that I would use every day, but I have to be realistic: it's shiny, mechanical, and pointless. How could I resist?

The keychain itself is quite substantial, with a very heavy split ring to attach the keys to. One of my keys has a squared-off hole in the bow that binds on the ring, making the spare-no-expense build into a little too much of a good thing, but it hasn't been enough of a hassle to get me to change it. And while it may seem strange to say, this is a working ball bearing, so it's free to spin and move as it was intended to. It was a little stiff straight out of the box, but it loosened up after just a few days' use. The shaft diameter for the inner race is 15mm, making it just slightly smaller than a 4.25 ring size. Sticking a finger through it and twirling the keys around and around is surprisingly entertaining; I'll also toy with it and flip the inner race and cage around in those quiet moments when I'm idle but there's nothing interesting on my blackberry.

The polished stainless steel has been surprisingly difficult to scratch; while it does show a few marks, the keyfob in these photos has spent six weeks jostling around with lose change and other pocket items in addition to the keys that it carries. It's also quite heavy, which lets it bully its way to the bottom of a jacket pocket instead of getting tangled up in the gloves and toque that I invariably carry these days. That means that there's much less chance of launching my keys into a snowbank - a very good thing. With lighter summer clothes the weight might not be quite so welcome, so I predict that this keychain will need to be put aside when I'm not wearing a jacket.

The ball bearing keychain is an executive toy that's disguised as a tribute to an important machine with a fascinating design, but without the MoMA connection it would have been much harder to justify its cost. While I'm glad that I bought it after a happy afternoon in the galleries, I wouldn't buy another if something tragic happens to this one. But I'm not in any way dissatisfied: it's almost impossible for me to leave it alone when it's sitting on my desk, even when I have an important review to write. Never underestimate the entertainment value of things that are shiny, mechanical, and pointless.

last updated 18 dec 2010