Corcoran Gallery of Art

I found the Corcoran Gallery of Art blah. From what I heard, I somehow placed it in my mind as being the same caliber as the Phillips Collection. It was not. Also, the two special exhibits on view (one about modern African American artwork and one a collection of food an astronaut would take on a long space journey) were mostly too edgy for me. In all, I spent about eighty minutes in the museum.

I took pictures.

As for the permanent collection, which covers Western art from the last few hundred years, I most enjoyed the historic American Art landscape painting room. It contains two large Bierstadts and two Thomas Coles. I also spotted a few other artists that, even if I don't enjoy all their work, I prefer their works more than other artists. I spotted three Corots, a small Guardi, a Renoir, and a small Picasso. In the modern art wing, the artists I recognized were Gene Davis and Ellsworth Kelly, neither of whom I'd say I definitely like, but I like them more than anyone else I saw in that wing, so that's saying something about the gallery.

1 comment:

mark said...

Apparently the Corcoran is closing. Most of its artwork will go to the National Gallery of Art. For a good summary of the situation and how this particular outcome was selected / came to pass, read this 2014 story Judge approves Corcoran Gallery of Art plan to partner with National gallery, GWU.

It sounds like the reason the Corcoran failed now, after a century and a half of existence, is due to failure at fundraising, almost to the point of incompetence. The Corcoran didn't manage to get donors at anywhere near the rate as comparable institutions. Partially it was a lack of vision for the gallery. Yet, the Corcoran did so poorly, it sounds like they almost didn't try. This 2012 story paints the picture: Corcoran Gallery: Why don’t donors give?