Comments on: Contribute to the Story

By: Wayne Dickson

Wayne Dickson — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:10:55 +0000

Re the comment and response referring to Cassatt, Sargent, etc., defining boundaries and applying labels is always tricky. In graduate school, I studied W.H. Auden in surveys of both English (not British, sic) and American lit. Same with Eliot and James. What defines a “Roman” artist? For example, does a Greek slave qualify if he were working for a Roman citizen who lived in North Africa and had visited Rome just once? Probably dealt with in the catalog.

But I was interested in a dog that didn’t bark in the email or here, at least not that I noticed: the term “genre.” I’m a retired Humanities professor and definitely not current on scholarship. But is the silence significant? I’ll do some checking.

By: Gary

Gary — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:07:28 +0000

Although I loved the exhibit, I was troubled by some of the commentary. For example, in one of the Remington paintings–the one of 5 soldiers defending a watering hole against native Americans, it states that some have interpreted this painting to Remington’s xenophobia against immigration!! I find these kinds of subjective comments totally unnessary, if not insulting to Remington and European-Americans. There is another painting that depicts an election in the 1850’s. It states that there is the noticable absence of blacks and women. During that period, blacks were still slaves and women didn’t get the right to vote until 1920, so of course it would be an all-white, male situation. There was no need to state the obvious. I don’t need to have someone with their own political agenda constantly remind me: “white man bad, everyone else, good.” If I want that, I will watch a Spike Lee movie.

By: Michael R. Grauer

Michael R. Grauer — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:44:22 +0000

While I appreciate the drama of Remington’s “Fight for the Waterhole,” this is hardly a scene of everyday life for a cowboy. Cowboy fights with Indians were rare, indeed, in the West. Cowboy life was full of drudgery. Better to use Remington’s “Fall of the Cowboy” or one of his bronco busting scenes in the context of this exhibition.

By: francisco

francisco — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:56:53 +0000

I find the gesture in her hand welcoming. as in please come in. or as in – so please you came…
and the body leanguaje of the guy on the chair. is like looking down at the other as in I’m better then you…. ther is a tension between the two

By: Bev Benson

Bev Benson — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:50:09 +0000

The preview of this show makes we want to see what you would have chosen 1915 to present.
.

By: Katie Steiner

Katie Steiner — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:18:54 +0000

Good question, Dore, about why the exhibition includes paintings by John Singer Sargent, Mary Cassatt, Theodore Robinson, and others that depict European, rather than strictly American locales. The paintings to which you refer are found in the fourth chronological section of the exhibition, called Cosmopolitan and Candid Stories, 1877–1915. In the second half of the nineteenth century, easier and faster modes of transportation and the nation’s increasingly international outlook led to a growth in European travel by affluent Americans. Artists also flocked to Europe, and to Paris in particular, which at the time was the world’s artistic capital. Because many “American stories” took place abroad in this era, we’ve included works in the show that reflect this history. For more information, visit http://www.metmuseum.org/special/americanstories/theme.aspx?sid=5. Thanks again for your question!

By: Dore Hammond

Dore Hammond — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:57:43 +0000

Loved the show. Amazing paintings and wonderful insights into American life. One question though, as much as I thought Sargent’s Venice and Paris scenes were beautiful I was wondering why they were in a show about America. But no matter, I was still delighted with the whole show.