Warhol change is good

I’m glad that Tom Sokolowski is stepping down.  Fifteen years is too long for anyone to be running a museum dedicated to Andy Warhol.   I can’t deny that he has done well.  During his tenure, The Warhol has produced some of the boldest exhibitions in the region.  In taking on sensitive topics, Mr. Sokolowski has stuck to his vision.  In a lot of ways, The Warhol is Pittsburgh’s Museum of Contemporary Art.  It brings in some great traveling shows and presents edgy thematic exhibitions.  Its offerings are extensive and change enough to keep the place interesting.

Mr. Sokolowski’s comments on Pittsburgh Public Art (this week in the Pittsburgh City Paper) are pretty funny. (and a good indicator that his departure is long overdue)  He dismisses all public art except for a project that he helped to select.  Where has he been for the past fifteen years?  (either out-of-town or hiding in his museum!)  What about all of the Sprout murals that have appeared throughout the city? There are definitely some good ones!  What about all of the grassroots projects that pop up (sometimes temporarily) in alternative spaces?  Sure, there are some awful pieces of public art in Pittsburgh.  I think that Mr. Sokolowski’s favorite, Arch by Glenn Kaino, is one of the worst pieces of public art that I have ever seen.  The piece is cheaply made, (it already seems to be falling apart) poorly situated (at the edge of a parking lot it looks like a commercial advertisement for the nearby Goodyear store) and it lacks any sense of complexity in drawing inspiration from the nearby bridges.  It looks tacky and kitsch next to Downtown Pittsburgh.  (like an urban yard gnome)  Mr. Sokolowski has had some good ideas, but I wonder if those blue glasses still work?

I met Mr. Sokolowski once.  Oddly, it was at the dedication for R.M. Fischer’s Langley Observatory Clock, a public art piece located next to the Carnegie Science Center. (a piece that I like)  While in New York I spotting him during the week of the Armory Show.  I asked him if he saw anything good.  “I’ve seen a lot of crap,” he responded.  I guess that pretty much sums up his life.

I think The Warhol is going to be fine.  I hope Mr. Sokolowski finds a happy place.  I’ll excuse his remarks about Pittsburgh.  I may not agree with his comments, but I admire the fact that he made his opinion known.  Hopefully Pittsburghers will take his words as a challenge.

Advertisements

3 Comments

Filed under Art, Criticism

3 responses to “Warhol change is good

  1. rose

    I couldn’t agree with you more about “Arch”. I can’t drive by it without thinking that it’s sponsored by (and advertising for) Goodyear. Wasn’t this “piece” meant to be temporary? Maybe that’s why it’s falling apart.

  2. Ann

    You make a nice point about the grassroots and temporary public pieces around the city. Works by Tim Kaulen, in particular, come to mind. There is some interesting art on CMU campus too.

    • tomsarver

      Definitely. I don’t think he was looking too hard at the Pittsburgh scene…and that reminds me. I thought The Warhol’s Shepard Fairey billboard campaign was lame. It would have been acceptable to me if Fairey was out wheat-pasting those pieces himself, under cover of darkness.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s