I'll break up the travelogue with some current events. Went to the Rothko Centre yesterday to check out the scandalous exhibition with a dick on a cross. Haven't been there in ages (probably the last time was before COVID), I confess. Among the new things in the centre itself — the automatic door at the entrance doesn't work anymore, bummer. On the plus side, they installed self-service lockers for your stuff, where you have to leave a euro as a deposit so you don't lose the key. When you come back, you insert the key and turn it to open the locker, and the euro drops out of the slot into a little pocket at the bottom of the lock. Fun and convenient.
As for the exhibitions, we checked out a few temporary ones. One was by some gloomy Ukrainian punk dude, Kolya Novikov, who spent his whole life trying to paint independently, while the USSR spent its whole life trying to jail him for vagrancy. In the end, his friends got him placed in a mental hospital where he could work in peace. Looking at the paintings, I'm not entirely buying this explanation. Gloomy, twisted monochrome human bodies, swollen crosses and churches. I have a simple principle here: I get enough grimness in my life as it is, I don't want to absorb it from art on top of that.
On the other hand, another guy, Aleksejs Naumovs from Latvia, is very positive — he travels all over Europe and paints cities and villages in bright colors. His paintings don't really resonate with me, but I'm always down for positivity and cheerful colors.
As for that particular censored exhibition, I actually really liked it. The author, Estonian Sander Raudsepp, actually makes his sculptures meticulously, with a ton of detail, plus bases them on jokes, memes, and all sorts of pop themes. Very accessible ideas, you don't have to make up an interpretation yourself. Just the thing if you want a break from highbrow pretentiousness. Plus, he constantly mentions psychedelics. Like, there is no death, we'll all continue to exist in the multiverse. Upbeat!
The dick on the cross itself isn't exactly super scandalous. I'm generally surprised by religious people, to be honest. It's clear that the most obvious metaphor is that people have made an idol out of sexuality instead of god. Or out of patriarchy and chauvinism, if you prefer. It's unlikely that believers can argue with this, they keep harping on about it themselves all the time. At least about the first point. And is it worth getting outraged over something that embodies an idea you agree with?
