an official-ish ranking of the APAH 250
if there's two things i love, it's art history and being judgmental. today, i'm treating you to both! join me as i rank the pieces from college board's AP art history course. the works, known colloquially by us APAH veterans as the 250, were the source of many headaches, frustrations, and lost essay points over the years—but i'd be lying if i said i didn't still have a weird attachment to certain pieces.
before we begin, i'd like to shout out the original creator of the tier list, as well as my saviors, beth harris and steven zucker, who helped me brush up on some of the pieces i'd forgotten about. now! sit back, relax, and enjoy several paragraphs of art rants that nobody asked for....
ps. i apologize for the strange formatting of the tier list! i have been agonizing over this detail for the past half hour and at this point, i'm willing to let it suck
we'll start out with the PLATINUM tier, which houses some of my all-time favorite pieces (as well as some works i find incredibly iconic and/or hilarious) i won't be going over every single piece here (at this point, you all know about my love for mariko mori and the northern renaissance) but i'll give you some quick highlights:
1. röttgen pietà, unknown artist, c. 1300-25
like many other pietas, the emotion in this sculpture is inescapable. made in germany during the late gothic period, the röttgen pietà (left), uses choppy cuts of wood to depict jesus' battered body and the sorrow of his mother, reveling in the crucifixion's horror. in my opinion, this work is a rare example of a piece becoming better with age. the faded paint and worm holes in mary's head just add to the gruesome scene. i especially love how it compares to michelangelo's more well-known pietà (right). although i can appreciate the stark emotion and technical skill of his piece, i think it shows just how innovative (and borderline surrealist!) the röttgen pieta was.
2. en la barberia no se llora, pepón osorio, 1994
this piece, whose title translates to "no crying allowed in the barbershop", alludes to the expectation of men to uphold an image of heightened masculinity, specifically in male-dominated spaces. the installation is filled with kitschy objects (known in this context as chucherías), as well as phallic motifs, and depictions of traditional masculinity, like bullets and sports equipment. en la barberia... is an immersive look into pepón osorio's critique of manhood and identity, specifically in latino communities like the one he grew up in. he touches on this more in an interview with amy s. choi, saying, "i just don’t have to justify myself. i am who i am and i come across people in multiple realities and deal with them in different ways. i participate in different realities when i don’t have to be one, but i can be more than one. there’s room for transformation."
3. the swing, jean-honoré fragonard, 1767, and the swing (after fragonard), yinka shonibare, 2001
while i enjoy both of these works separately, what makes me love them is how well they work together. fragonard's the swing is a clear embodiment of the rococo period—full of drama, humor, and sensuality. the lush colors, cupid imagery, and flirtatious expressions speak to the era's slipping morality and playful nature. shonibare's contribution 200 years later provides excellent commentary on imperialism and power struggles. his use of dutch wax fabric, a textile largely associated with african identity, signifies the darker side of these time periods, namely the colonization of non-western land.
up next are some pieces from the three middle tiers, on the podium, global top 50, and *crickets*. these tiers range between pieces i like but don't love, and pieces i simply do not care about. here's a closer look at one work from each section, starting with on the podium...
1. object (le déjeneur en fourrure), meret oppenheim, 1936
i will forever associate this piece with the controversy it sparked when we first learned about it in class. many of my classmates were disgusted with the piece, they felt uncomfortable even looking at it. and while i don't disagree, i love how weird and surreal it is. oppenheim is rumored to have thought of the piece while at lunch with picasso and his then-partner dora maar. after jokingly asking the waiter for more fur instead of tea, she created this beautiful mess of a piece—a ceramic teacup, saucer, and spoon—completely covered in fur. i know some of you might disagree with me here, but i adore how oppenheim subverts traditional notions of texture with object. (though i can't deny that the idea of actually using it makes me want to gag.)
2. doryphoros (spear-bearer), polykleitos, c. 450-440, and augustus of prima porta, unknown artist, 1st century C.E.
despite being made over 4 centuries apart, these two marble statues occupy the same space in my mind. it is believed that augustus (right) was actually modeled to resemble doryphoros (left), and for that reason, i hold quite a bit of respect for the artists. many ancient statues didn't survive for more than a few centuries—constant invasions led to many sculptures being destroyed or melted down—yet the quality of these works are near-perfect. they're great examples of classical masculine sculpture, complete with contrapposto, idealistic proportions, and allegorical references to power and divinity (doryphoros with his (implied) spear, and augustus with cupid symbolism).
this may be a hot take, but i think this painting is pretty overrated. i'm quite vocal about my preference of the northern renaissance, and although there are plenty of italian renaissance works i adore, this is not one of them. i appreciate the detail raphael put into the painting—i actually love how how he differentiated various philosophers—but i find that this becomes much harder to enjoy when it is drowned out by the rest of his paintings in the vatican's four "raphael rooms". it also reminds me of that stupid logic album cover. (of course, i can't blame raphael for this, but it doesn't make me like the painting any more.)
now that we're done with the mid-tier works, it's time to get into some good old art slander. my bottom two tiers, flop and flaming garbage are reserved for the pieces that just don't sit right with me. some of these works i actively hate, while others are just unfortunate victims of my strange taste. starting with one piece from flop, here are two works i could do without...
1. nadar élevant la photographie à la hauteur de l’art, honoré daumier, 1863
this piece is quite literally the definition of "flop". the title translates to "nadar elevating photography to art", a reference to nadar, a french photographer who was famous for his aerial shots of paris. after an 1862 court decision determining photography as "high art", daumier was evidently salty. this lithograph portrays nadar as a clumsy fool, eager to get a good shot, but in today's context, it feels like nadar got the last laugh. if only daumier had lived to see 2014's grainy desaturated tumblr photography...talk about high art.
2. house in new castle county, robert venturi, 1973-1983
this house is an insult to everything i have ever held dear—architecture, interior design, even postmodernism! robert venturi woke up one day in 1973 and chose violence. i wish i could pick one aspect of the house to focus my hatred on, but i can't even narrow it down. amidst the disgustingly awkward back of the house, and the turquoise and wooden atrocity that is the "music room", i can never fathom how anybody would consider this house to be "simple and comfortable", but that is exactly how venturi described it (and somehow this infuriates me even more). call me crazy, but if i'm paying millions of dollars to commission a house, i'm not asking for four ugly doric columns in my yard.
seeing as i am still seething with anger over venturi's house..., i should probably close this entry off. i hope you were able get a glimpse into the emotional turmoil that is APAH, the 250, and venturi's wretched mind. thanks for listening to me rant! see ya :)
Comments
Post a Comment