"Let a collection of yahoos but take of their clothes and trounce around stage shouting obscenities, and a breakthrough in dramatic art is announced and applauded." -Malcolm Muggeridge

I made my a second pilgrimage to MoMA, the Museum of Modern Art in New York, over Christmas Break.

I love modern art. I love abstract expressionism, and concrete music. I love when things are hinted at, not said explicitly, when the listener, or viewer, is challenged to put things together for herself. So I went, expecting a fine meal.

Upon entry to the exhibit, one is ushered into a large space, three walls of which were displaying a film, each about movie screen size or a bit smaller.

Scene One

Screen one: Redhead (Think Klimt's "Danae") winding her way sensuously through a field of foot long grass towards the camera. What is she wearing? As previously mentioned, this was a Modern Art Museum. Nevertheless, it left LOTS to the imagination. Like, 'what kind of clothes would she wear when she is not doing performance art (if any)?' and 'what would she look like in a fuzzy, homey Christmas Turtleneck?'.

Screen two: The view from the perspective of said redhead. This was actually interesting. the grass was tall, inviting and made me want to frolic and gambol about.

Screen three: A sow, winding it's way sensuously in it's own hoggy way, towards the camera; likely it meant to approximate the windings of the redhead. What is it wearing? As previously mentioned, this was a Modern Art Museum. Nevertheless, it left LOTS to the imagination. Like, 'shouldn't a sow wear clothes when doing performance art?' and 'what would she look like in a nice tourtière?'.

What was the Artist trying to say?

Scene Two:

All Screens: Here we are treated to a close up of the bottom of the subject's foot as it meanders underwater. The toes were nicely manicured.

What was the Artist trying to say?

Scene Three:
All Screens: Here, the gentle audience is treated to, for lack of a better term, a 'Menstruation Triptych', of sorts, images of such directness, that many of New York's aesthetes, along with the grandchildren they brought along, gasped audibly at the sight.

What was the Artist trying to say?

Who knows? She was born in Switzerland, and studied in Austria, so it's a guaranteed bet that anything she says will be applauded.

Point is, here you have a mixed audience of all sorts, who pay $20 to see footage most of them would not advise their kids to rent, let alone buy, all watching consummate baseness under the guise of "Art". A perfect waste of film. Actually, a waste of Talent. It reminds me of my University Professor who railed against the bawdy songs of some renaissance singers who 'used music as a vehicle for their vulgarity'.

But there was more. Upstairs in the exhibits, one finds the now almost obligatory 4'x8'' Blank White Canvas Painting (untitled). I have seen other Blank White Canvas Paintings at other museums -or maybe it was the same one- so that, in itself, is not worthy of comment. But what is worthy of comment is that, on the opposite wall from Blank White Canvas Painting #1, there was ANOTHER Blank White Canvas Painting. This one was titled 'Red Bird', and seemed pleased to be mounted so close to a family relation.

What were the artists trying to say?

Who knows? Funny though that, two unrelated artists with different philosophies manage to come up with the exact same rendering of the same subject. Why mount them across from each other? At first I thought maybe MoMA was trying to make a joke, but then I realized that in a temple like this, humour is the second casualty.

What is the blogger trying to say?

There was a dark purple curtain separating crawling hog woman from the rest of the exhibits. A fifteen year old stood there considering the curtain. His dad motioned him to leave, and as they did, he inquired his dad of the curtain, asking simply and honestly- "Dad, is THIS Art?". The dad looked at the curtain, looked at his boy, and without answering, both walked away, sans comment or expression.