Talk:Museo Soumaya

Untitled

Should be more critical - have added some stuff from http://www.artinfo.com/news/story/37450/carlos-slims-museo-soumaya-money-cant-buy-taste/?page=1, - at the moment reads like a press release, totally disorts critical perception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.233.95.90 (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Some of the critics really don't make any sense, even though they are sourced. Dornicke (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

what do you mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Typo or what?

What the hell does "low ebb" mean? It's talking about Slim buying a bunch of Rodin figures back in the day when their price was lower, but what does "low ebb" mean? Was it a typo? Does that term even exist? Cancerbero 8 (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

Sorry, IP 93.96.148.42, only saw your reply now, some two years later.

I have the impression that some of the criticism about this museum is not really worth of much consideration. Very few of these critics were written by real art experts, most of them by journalists, perhaps with some background on art. All the criticism I've read about the museum so far is quite superficial and I was impressed by the amount of criticism built over nothing but stereotypes and bigotry. Several critics used expressions such as nouveau-riche (for the line of argument of "money can't buy taste") but they didn't really offered solid arguments to show why the collection lacks quality. When they do try to raise a point, it's generally by the means of presumptions or possibilities (like a journalist wondering if the Rodin's pieces are authentic and if their casting was authorized). Besides, the critics seem to lack a wide understanding of museology in Latin America or even the concept of art itself.

A critic published in the WSJ reads: It's something that Latin America lacks [a museum of international standard]. Mexico City, for all its marvels, like murals by Diego Rivera, is best known in art circles for the house-museum of Rivera's lover, Frida Kahlo. Sure, the city has a great anthropology museum, if your idea of fun is staring at pre-Columbian figurines for several hours. But in terms of art, the region is wanting. São Paulo, Buenos Aires, Bogotá, Santiago—all world-class cities, all bereft of the caliber of museum that anchors so many cosmopolitan destinations. [1]

The author seems to think that pre-Columbian artifacts is not art. He probably also doesn't know that at least two art museums both in São Paulo (MASP) and Buenos Aires (MNBA) do have world-wide renowned art collections. And we could add others, such as Caracas and its museum of contemporary art which is one of the best in the Americas. Of course, such museums can not be compared with encyclopedic art museums, such as the Louvre, the Hermitage or even the Met, but, how many museums worldwide can really be compared to these?

Another critic says: The collection does not seem at all "representative of one of the world's wealthiest men, and certainly not of a real art connoisseur: a dark van Gogh from his early phase here, then several Mexican colonial portraits, a few sculptures by Dalí or Picasso, a Miró or a Max Ernst there, and so on — a surprising mix.

There are three van Goghs in the Soumaya, and at least two of them are superb. There's nothing negative about a work of an early phase of van Gogh - quite the contrary. It's a rare picture, since it was not a prolific phase. Such artworks are quite difficult to be found even in rich museums of modern arts in the US. The argument here is "if I don't know it, it's not that worthy..."

Then: If you love Salvador Dali's cheesy Surrealist bronze sculptures of the 1970s and 1980s, churned out for moneyed provincial buyers; posthumous (if authorized) casts of Auguste Rodin masterworks; or, sentimental Victorian odes to childhood innocence, carved in marble, this is the place for you.

Well... Salvador Dalí is a master of the 20th century art and, yes, his taste for sculptures is controversial. But that does not affect the quality of the collection. I hate Pollock's paintings and I see no artistic value in the American pop art, but that is not enough for me to say that the MoMA collection is a bunch of crap. After all, Pollock is a master and American pop art has its value for the history of art. And, to be honest, the doubts the author has about the authenticity of Rodin's sculptures in the Soumaya can be applied to 99% of Rodin's artworks in American museums and private collections, and even a large share of European museums and private collections. They won't lack quality or authenticity just because they're in Mexico.

Not much distinguishes the rest of the European art. A painting said to be by a follower of Leonardo da Vinci generally makes you wonder just how far behind he was following. A full-size bronze replica of Michelangelo's Vatican "Pietà" is a tourist souvenir.

Yes, the replica of the Pietà is kitsch indeed, but his comment about the painting of the circle of Leonardo doesn't make any sense. It's one of a number of old copies of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder. They are all indistinctly identified as "follower of Leonardo". That includes the painting in New York that part of the American media insists to be an original Leonardo... and, yes, most European works in the Soumaya are not masterpieces. The same happens elsewhere. From the 2,000 European paintings in the Met, there are about 300/400 real masterpieces. The majority are average or second-rate works. The same principle applies to Soumaya and the majority of museums worldwide. Dornicke (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Siglos XV al XVI

This section seems to lack context. Why these four works in a museum with hundreds?--Lucas559 (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)