Sunday, March 30, 2008
At the SF MOMA I found several images to be compelling. However, I came away with questions regarding how imagery, (since we were looking at photography) becomes MOMA worthy art. I greatly enjoyed looking at the "small wars" which was visually compelling. We, here at home, do not know what it is like on the ground in a war zone. This show helped bring the of loneliness and abstraction of war home. However, the more I am exposed to "high" or critically acclaimed art I leave feeling like I missed the point. I don't understand what makes an image MOMA worthy, rather than IKEA worthy?