Georgia O'Keeffe: Visions of the Sublime
Topic: Museums and Visual Arts
Posted: Thu, Feb 10, 2005 
One of the first stops for the Giant Red Arrow in its tour of Indianapolis cultural events is the Georgia O'Keeffe exhibit at the Eiteljorg Museum. My familiarity with O'Keeffe was with her paintings of flowers and of animal bones in western landscapes, but Georgia O'Keeffe: Visions of the Sublime contains only a few of those paintings, and includes 39 paintings of quite different subjects: Lake George, rivers, horizons, pueblo buildings and even Canadian and Hawaiian scenes.
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.indyscribe.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/101
Categories
- About Us
- Board and Video Games
- Books
- Day Trips
- Events & Festivals
- Film & TV
- Geek Bling
- History
- Hoosier Oddities
- Indianapolis In the News
- Indianapolis Living
- Kids' Stuff
- Local Attractions
- Local Celebrities
- Museums and Visual Arts
- Music
- Night Life
- Photos
- Restaurants
- Shopping
- Sports
- Theater
- Transportation
- Weather
Comments
1. Feb 11, 05 11:05 AM | Michael Packer said:
O'Keeffe really rocked from a post-modern perspective. When a young and struggling artist such as myself was confronted with the need to label and clarify every single thing as a symbol or concept, O'Keefe came out and said "Why did I do something this particular way or even use a certain color? Because I wanted to." For a lot of people, O'Keeffe is about sexual imagery disguised as flowers. I tend to believe that she just painted what she thought was interesting. The bones rock.
2. Feb 11, 05 01:13 PM | Rachel Wolfe said:
Ooh, I wanna see this exhibit. On a related note, one of my favorite O'Keeffe paintings, from her Flowers series, is Jimson Weed -- and it hangs in the Indianapolis Museum of Art (which is closed until May 6, 2005)...
3. Feb 12, 05 08:24 PM | Jim Chalex said:
I'm looking forward to seeing this as well.
Interestingly, O'Keeffe denied that her flower paintings were meant to resemble female genitalia. Not that we believe her.
4. Feb 13, 05 07:51 AM | Steph Mineart said:
I can see why she might find that interpretation irritating; it's sort of a "least common denominator" take on it, and I'm sure what she was trying to do had a lot more depth than that. But as I was saying to Mike, I have that reaction when looking at actual flowers, [insert joke about me spending too much time in the garden here] which stands to reason, considering that's what flowers ARE. So one might argue that if you are seeing genitalia when looking at O'Keeffe's flower paintings, she captured something true about the natural world.
5. Oct 19, 13 03:31 AM | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng6hQfGzQig said:
This is the right website for anybody who hopes to find out about this
topic. You understand a whole lot its almost tough to argue with
you (not that I personally would want to…HaHa). You certainly put a new spin on
a subject that has been written about for ages. Excellent stuff, just
wonderful!