Cecily Brown’s Paintings Are at the (Other) Met

I think the work is wonderful. In the tradition of abstract expressionism, big, dynamic, very New York —worthy. Yet the words of the artist seem to be seeking to fulfill the needs of the journalist, that is to explain to those who can't look at an abstract painting and appreciate what it is because they don't get non-realism having never taken an art history course or ventured into the many museums available. My advice - let them go. All that background about the building and the times we live in is irrelevant. Answer questions politely of course, smile when they ask stupid questions, but give up this need to "explain" abstraction to the masses. It's a form of poetry. It's got a small audience. It's going to b that way for a few generations. Art really isn't for everyone, it could be, but that would require changing the education curricullum. The idea that this needs to please the crowd or the institution that funded it is wrong. All the "explaining" just masks all the ignorance and postpones the reckoning of who we are and why we don't really deserve a lot of our cultural inheritance. We've chosen to dumb down our children. We've turned our backs on the ambition that chose Chagall for the building in the first place. Let s be honest about that, and hopefully we'll get back on the right track sooner.

Beautiful paintings! Excited to see them. Perfect setting for them, and kudos to the Met for once again displaying art. Too many years since 1966 without visual art at met opera house. Thank heavens for artists and art institutions of all types. We need them more than ever.

Stunning! Perfect setting...