Bacon Triptych Has Glare Issue
 |
| Left: Central panel of Francis Bacon's Three Studies of Lucien Freud, 1969. Right: Still from Los Angeles Times installation video |
Francis Bacon's Three Studies of Lucian Freud has been installed in the David Geffen Galleries at LACMA, reports Jessica Gelt in the Los Angeles Times. The article has immediately sparked controversy, for its photographs and video show prominent reflections in the triptych's glazing. The three framed panels directly face windows looking west along sun-drenched Wilshire Blvd.
Gelt is tactful about the matter ("The golden compositions are housed in bright gold frames, and the glass that shields them reflects the world beyond.") Less so is the first commenter on the L.A. Times site, who snarks: "Wow. Look at all that glare in the glass obscuring the paintings. As if no one predicted this no-no straight from Gallery/Museum Design 101 syllabus…"
The horizontal light and city views are, of course, signature features of Peter Zumthor's David Geffen galleries. Most museum paintings are not glazed. The Bacon triptych presents a unique challenge, however, as Bacon himself insisted on glass. In an interview with art critic David Sylvester, Bacon explained:
"I feel that, because I use no varnishes or anything of that kind, and because of the very flat way I paint, the glass helps to unify the picture. I also like the distance between what has been done and the onlooker that the glass creates; I like the removal of the object as far as possible."
It has been claimed that Bacon welcomed reflections as a way of bringing the viewer into the art. He specifically denied that in the Sylvester interview. "To want the person reflected in the glass of a dark painting is illogical and has no meaning," Bacon said. "I think it's just one of those misfortunes. I hope they'll make glass soon which doesn't reflect."
Three Studies of Lucian Freud, a gift of late casino magnate Elaine Wynn, is LACMA's first work by Bacon. When Wynn purchased it for $142 million in 2013, it was the most expensive painting ever sold at auction.
Comments
Between things like reflections on glass, too many gray concrete walls or overly stretched budgets, LACMA in the next several years will be tested. But along with the Lucas, it will now be more like the new kid on the block.
Frankly, I just don't get the criticism that the museum has windows. To these critics, art produced before the advent of electric light must have been terrible, because how dare they use illumination from the sky to produce their works. What about glare? What about changing light conditions?! What about (gasp!) north facing windows vs. south facing windows! Oh the humanity! Raphael's stuff? Worthless, he used daylight and candlelight. Candlelight (shields eyes with fingers!) it flickers! Nobody could ever art or view art in conditions other than perfect electric conditions. It's not possible. Never in human history has a such thing been considered.
Norton Simon, back when I first visited in 2007, had this problem.
I left a poisonously worded comment card denouncing the museum's policy of covering all of its paintings behind unclean and unclear glass. I asked that, if they must retain glass over their masterpieces, can they at least be cleaned of dust so that one can better appreciate them, and also treated to prevent large "EXIT" lettering over them?
A senior official responded:
"I surely hope you will not be disappointed again on your next visit. While we cannot always—or totally—control dust, we do make an effort to do routine checks for “ghosting” or “offgassing” on all of these glazed paintings. And since 2007 we have upgraded to a type of static-free, non-reflective acrylic, called “Museum Optium,” which I think allows one to view the painting in an optimum way. Feel free to leave a comment card letting us know if you disagree."
Shazaamm! Problem solved.
On my next visit, I left the following comment:
"I could not be happier last week to have finally "seen" your museum's stunning collection of European paintings.
"Most astounding was my chance to live, albeit briefly, with your Zurbarán "altar" still-life -- to my mind, arguably, the most important Baroque painting in the United States.
"Great thanks!"
*
To LACMA: 2007 is calling you.
> criticism that the
> museum has
> windows
Not when it's both too excessive and is part of a building where the square footage already isn't as large as it can be or should be. That's not even factoring in less usable wall space for exhibits or dealing with objects that are light sensitive.
Although LACMA's collection has plenty of works that are better left in storage, the museum (and as true of lots of other ones too), should show more of it. LACMA also isn't helped either by existing space better left for pre-mid- or pre-1900's artworks instead of being used for items too much like those at a Hauser & Wirth.
When Pereira's design was unveiled in 1965, a lot of space was turned over to generally narrow galleries surrounding an open 4-floor-tall atrium. The openings were eventually sealed off with walls.
I'd be surprised if some of the windows in the Geffen don't eventually see a similar fate. Not to mention changing all the walls that right now are plain gray concrete.
I had my doubts about Optium when it was first suggested to me. But the clarity is excellent. More importantly, it protects light-sensitive works from fading.
--- J. Garcin
LACMA: Say it is so, and you will course-correct.
I'm not fully convinced. Hirshhorn and the Zwinger both have large sunlight-facing glass environments, and both use gauze-ish drapery, both to good effect. Although, I'm now recalling, those spaces largely display sculptures and decorative arts. Still, some of these works were shown in vitrines, and are subject to glaring light. In sum, I don't recall the light putting me off. So, that's something.
Question to LACMA: Is there enough fine art collection without need of glazing, and plastic art, to fill your periphery gallery space if you can't perform required mitigating measures?
Yes, Hirshorn's outer ring of galleries with the large glass windows has bronze and the like, as I recall. The Getty's South Pavillion terrace also displays sculpture and dec arts as opposed to glazed works that do not require light limitations.
> installed would have
> to be dark black-out
> curtains
I believe some of the windows already have curtains in front of them---that's almost a given since the building in just a few weeks will open for preview showings. I'm curious if things like that end up making some of the galleries look goofy. lol.
After seeing images of just a few works, including the Francis Bacon, set against gray concrete walls, that will be the one feature next month that probably stands out the most. I hope not, but I've been in locations where all the walls are plain concrete (eg, parking garages), and I suspect the visuals won't be too different in the Geffen.
Bringing out buckets of liquid tint and lots of applicators (roller brushes?) may be necessary.
.. Deleuze (French philosopher) wrote a book about Bacon, The Logic of Sensation. According to Deleuze, Bacon did NOT want to give the viewer perfect access to the figure: the glass frame, the cage in which he places the figure, the distortions... Hence, on that basis alone, I think Bacon would have welcomed the supplementary reflections (from the building/windows).
There's also this. Bacon was conflicted about the glass covering his paintings. He was opposed to the reflections of the viewer (in the glass). Why? It was NOT because he was seeking the perfect lighting conditions which minimized the effects of the glazing. Bacon had a more complex understanding of reflection. According to Deleuze, Bacon painted against "affection" (seeing oneself in the glass) because Bacon understood that the "affection-image" translates a perception (sensory data) into an internal experience that produces action (narrative). Bacon wanted the "affect" of his paintings to exist at a level prior to perception. In which case, I think Bacon would have also welcomed the relation of expression that the painting establishes with its surroundings.
... For those familiar with Deleuze's work, here I am using the terminology of his Cinema books and his book on Leibniz to describe his argument in the Bacon book.
--- J. Garcin
The artist's taste on display conditions is entitled to be respected.
However, that should have no bearing on the presumption that other artists do not want their works adulterated by glaring light.
I know he wanted his paintings to be glazed and with gold frames, but what if the owner/institution wants otherwise? I read that Rothko never wanted his paintings to be framed, but I have seen all of his framed. Many Impressionists wanted their paintings to have simple thin wooden frames, but those wishes have been ignored in favor of massive ornate gold frames. Someday, an institution will hang a Baselitz right-side up if they haven't already.
Today, most contemporary artists paint in varying studio conditions but with more or less the same idea of light, the sidelight from windows in the homes of their collectors. Look at the photos of Elaine Wynn's home. The paintings hung near windows and during the day were lit primarily with sidelight.
... In the terrace galleries, LACMA has chosen to display art in a way that is consistent with the way that collectors live with art. There is a certain honesty and transparency in that.
--- J. Garcin
You take my point too far. There's a chasm between zero and adulterated.
In the case of Baroque painters, they may have never conceived of glass separating the art and viewer.
With glare, less is best, I find.
The question is, how will LACMA get there?
> In the terrace galleries,
> LACMA has chosen to
> display art in a way...
J Garcin, in the other thread, your post claiming that the squared-off corners under the curved roof line may actually be better than the rounded-off design (which Zumthor originally wanted---and very much likely still does) now comes off like rationalizing for the sake of rationalizing.
Because such comments seem like a parody of what Michael Govan will say, I used to wonder if they were possibly being posted anonymously by Govan himself---in an interview several years ago, he did mention LACMAonfire.
Although Zumthor's plans in LA have been so-called value engineered, the videos I've seen of his museum in Germany - presumably not affected by budget cutbacks or American workers - didn't make me go, "wow, that's what LA should have!" All the gray concrete walls, even in the context of more appropriate contemporary art, still had the looks and vibes of a warehouse or high-ceiling parking garage masquerading as an art museum.
William Pereira in 1965 had plenty of "huh?," while Peter Zumthor in 2026 will probably continue the same tradition.
However, several months ago, I did see a video taken by a visitor to LACMA sometime before 2020. Although the lack of crowds on that day didn't help things, the hodge-podge, reduced-budget layout of the Pereira/Hardy-Holzman-Pfeiffer buildings looked really weak. For a supposedly major museum, it was embarrassing.
One other thing: I recall this series from over 20 years ago:
Google: Sister Wendy Beckett was a renowned nun and art historian who gained fame in the 1990s through BBC and PBS documentaries, offering...reflections on masterpieces in major museums. [End quote]
I recall her doing an episode on LACMA and she introduced it by saying something along the lines of, "even though it isn't highly regarded by people in LA...." I just recall thinking, ouch. lol. But, hey, she at least included it in her series.
The quote, which I had only a vague recollection of, is actually:
"Traveling around the country, I was surprised to find how relatively unappreciated that LACMA is. But to Angelenos and visitors alike, LACMA is one of the most accessible and cherished museums I have ever visited."
"Relatively unappreciated" did stand out to me. At the time, I could understand it too. Or more that than, okay, "cherished." lol. The documentary was done before the Broad and Resnick wings had been built. I think at the time, an old parking garage was still where LACMA's entry canopy is now located.
That canopy has long seemed (and looked) temporary. Cargo containers have been used for offices for guest services and a restaurant. With the Geffen to its east, and the museum's visitor center and food services now on its ground floor, I wonder if the canopy serves any purpose. Since it has always looked makeshift, since the older Pereira buildings were knocked down, maybe the canopy deserves a heave-ho too.
Are you the same commenter who never has a kind thing to say about LACMA's art collection? If yes, I'm not surprised that you would latch on to the one pessimism the sister makes in her one-hour address.
And in this context it will be interesting to see if the Bacon tryptic will be moved, will it be moved to a similar location opposite glazing or to a gallery with artificial lighting only.
And if it is moved to an artificially lit gallery, will the chorus of 'I told you so' ever end?
> thing to say about
> LACMA's art
> collection
I've never judged its collection in this forum one way or the other. I did, however, mention what was said about it decades ago when I visited it in my youth.
I described a couple - perhaps visitors from the East or Midwest - in the elevator talking about their day. The woman said she was tired. The guy with her asked why that was. She sniffed that a lot of second-rate art was tiring to go through.
My family acted like someone had just farted in the elevator. lol.
As for the past 10 or so years, my complaint about what's on display at LACMA is mainly that way too much of it is contemporary art. Govan's love of the here and now, and what seems to be mirrored by a lot of his staffers - or what's going on at other non-contemporary art museums like the Huntington too - are making me tired (speaking of which) of newer art.
I chose Peter Zumthor...in part because of his ability to work with stone, concrete, and the play of light and shadow. You can imagine the questions: “Wait, all the walls are concrete and they’re not movable?” I was like, “Yeah, we already have two buildings of sheetrock and movable walls.”
One, that’s a big waste of energy every time you tear down walls and rebuild them. That’s an environmental sin. The Guggenheim is all concrete. You don’t change the walls, you adapt to it. But it turns out over time, I would say 99% of everybody here at LACMA and the curators are now super enthusiastic.
And each of the experts loves the way their art looks on the concrete. You’ll see when you see it all installed, it’s just like, Whoa. And my big complaint about museums, one of my many complaints about museums, is that old art doesn’t look good on sheet rock.
Sheetrock was invented in the 20th-century. It looks very temporary, commercial, contemporary, ever-changing. Whereas concrete has been around for millennia and you’ll see it just feels better. [End quote]
^ "oh-kay. "Doesn't look good on sheet rock" makes me think of something that J Garcin might post here. Not a slam, just that the comments keyed in here through past few years did make me think of what Govan would say too.
You're funny.