We took the kids to the Minneapolis Institute of Arts. I used to visit the museum a couple times a year, but hadn't gone since we had kids. There was a Georgia O'Keefe exhibit (runs until early January) that I wanted to see. It was a bit disappointing since there weren't any of her well-known works there, like the flowers and animal skulls, most of the exhibit was of her more obscure works. However, it was a good sampling of the various types of media she used. That's about all I could really say in favor of the exhibit. Kind of scant.
This painting is the one in the show that really made an impression on me. I was pushing my daughter in her stroller and came up around the side of this and it just struck me immediately as a baby in a womb. It really looks like a baby in utero, with a hand cradling its bottom and possibly one holding its head. The narrative next to this painting said critics panned it as being indicative of O'Keefe's gender and that it appeared to be a womb, but more recent "interpretations" had come up with other explanations.
What's wrong with it being a womb? Or a baby?
It's kind of a large painting, so it was striking and intimate. This was painted long before we had all the baby in-utero pictures that we do today. Pretty amazing. If I was pregnant, I think I might even get a poster of this for the baby's room.
Not too far away is the Frida Kahlo exhibit at the Walker Arts Center. That runs until January 20, 2008. I don't know if we will go to that one; we are mulling it over.