A day in the MET

            The MET is really a huge museum, I remember I went last year to take some pictures, but I forgot about that, so when I got in I was like “WOW.” You can get lost easily inside, and since is usually crowded that make it worst.

            I went with my friend, and as soon as we got in we took a map, then we paid and entered to the exhibitions. As soon as I saw the sign of “Photographs” I headed that place (I’m photographer that’s why it caught my attention at the moment).

            They had an exhibition called “Photography and a foul play” which was about the photography in the criminal world, the importance that had photography to document criminals, the making of mug shoots, documenting crime scenes, etc. It was really interesting seeing that exhibition because was like a flashback for my history of photography and photojournalism classes, and I got to see the real prints of really good/famous photographers (I only have seen them virtually).

            After that exhibition I went to the European painting and sculptures section located in the same floor, and then to the Asian and Eastern art section, so during my visit at the museum I saw photograph prints, paintings, sculptures, and antiques from past civilizations. It was really interesting. In order to appreciate the variety of art I saw I had to look from a close, far, and medium distance, all depended of the size of the art, the lights (basically the lamps in the ceiling), and the kind of art I was seeing. For example, some sculptures were “open air” and without supervision, so I could take a close looking, walk around them, and even touch them. Others were so big, that I had to take some steps back to see the whole painting, even though I also gave a close look to appreciate good details, like the brushes, some cracks in the painting and other small details, however some paintings were oil on canvas and at the moment of get close was a little hard to see it good due to the reflections of the light.  

            Overall I engaged every art from distinct distances each one, so I could have different perspectives and a wide appreciation of the art itself.

            Most the museum has the same characteristics regarding lightning (lamps attached to the ceiling, I never saw a special light highlighting an art piece) and wall color (I could observe three different wall colors during my travel in the museum), the frames match the art (specifically photograph and paintings) some art just a little monochromatic frame (black, white, red), some are more decorative.

            For each painting I gave a quick glance before read the label, and then I observe the painting with more detail to match the label description with the painting itself.

            Sometimes I got a little confused because some labels weren’t placed correctly, I mean in a wall with 3 paintings, one above the other two, and two labels on the side of one of the lower ones, and a no clear explanation of the painting led me to be confused. But that is in my opinion.

            In general terms, the museum is really well organized, the signs well located, the labels very descriptive (although I wish some had better explanations), so is really easy to leave there well informed, with a lot of new knowledge. The museum is really interesting; you could spend all day there without being aware of how the time flies inside, not only because is really, really huge, but because you will learn a lot of different kinds of arts, ages, cultures, etc.

        I always have had an appreciation for art, so everything was interesting for me, but 

only certain things really caught my attention, the photograph section because was fascinating 

see in real life old photographs from famous photographers. Also other things like antiques 

pieces because they allow you like travel back in the time and imagine how was everything

in that age. For example, the hieroglyphs (amazes me how they achieve write that way in

little rocks with that perfection and style). 

            I took my time to check every art I chose to look at. Some art pieces that got my attention more than other, so I stayed more time looking at those ones, trying to get more and better details. For some paintings I just took a glance, for other ones I stared for a while.

            I got a better explanation of the pieces. Before read the labels I looked at the art, but no always understood or knew about what it was. After read the labels I was like “Mmm interesting facts,” or “now I understand.” A fun fact that happened to me is that I saw a painting and I though it was a portrait of Frida Kahlo because of the resemblance, but I realized I was wrong after read the label.

            I like to use both formal and stylistic analysis, because is good to appreciate a great art, but also an original one. With this I mean is pleasant to the sight see a perfectly done piece of art, but if is cliché or something that you see everyday it will be boring although is very well done. On the other hand, if is not technically great but original, something out of the ordinary, and captivating, I will enjoy it as well. So, again, I used both kind of analysis, I observed the talents of the artist, but its originality too, some paintings are really beautiful and “perfects,” however in my opinion are something ordinary. Other paintings, were really extraordinary although it wasn’t beautiful to the eyes.

            We are in the Holy Week, so I got into a section called “Comparing the Rotterdam Drawing and the Underdrawing of the Met’s Crucifixion” and they had different interpretations about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. The painting I chose to analyze is The Crucifixion; The Last Judgment (ca. 1440–41) by Jan van Eyck. Although this painting is composed by two parts, I chose to focus my attention in one, The Last Judgment.

            This painting is very touching and meaningful to me. I am a Christian, and that painting represent something special for me because is the day that we all Christians long for, the last judgment, the day we will se Jesus.

            Analyzing it formally is a painting that was perfectly done and it’s very detailed, excepting (in my opinion) Jesus’ face, because it looks like Chinese and He wasn’t (but if that is the painter interpretation I respect it), and that he has the cross behind him. I could say that the painter had knowledge of the Bible or at least he read the book of Revelations where the final days are described.

            In order to successfully engage with the paint is vital look at it from different distances. From a far so the whole panorama can be appreciated. Everything happening in the heaven, the earth, and the hades.

On the other hand, is important to get a very close looking so every detail will be appreciated. Beginning from the heaven you will observe Jesus in the center, with angels playing the trumpet around him. At his feet I guess are Mary and Joseph, under them a chorus, and the apostles in each side of the chorus, and around all the people that have been saved or is waiting to be judged, people from different cultures/religions can be observed. There are two angels like saying “next.”

            Then there is the earth, people suffering, agonizing, yelling for help or forgiveness, some are sinking, others are burning and falling into holes (to the hell).

            Then we see the Archangel Gabriel keeping the door of the hades with a sword and a shield. The doors of the heaven are represented by a devilish skeleton. The creepiest part, the hades, the people falling into it and being devoured by horrid creatures (demons). Is really detailed, all kind of monster setting the people apart, cutting them into pieces, people suffering and full of pain, it really gives me goosebumps. Is a perfect representation of hell.

            In my opinion is a masterpiece, very original, and well represented. I also like the frame chose to keep the painting.

https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/33.92ab/  (Original painting in color).