Divine Egypt

Two quick reactions from a quick first visit to the Met’s blockbuster fall show, “Divine Egypt.” First is the extraordinary amount of Egyptian material in the Met’s collection. One almost feels that an impetus for the show was the Met’s desire to bring out of storage scores of objects that probably haven’t been displayed for years. After all, the topic of Egyptian deities is an umbrella that most of their antiquities come under. Second is a reminder of the immense borrowing power of the Met. Few, if any, other institutions could command loans of significant objects from the major museums in Paris, Vienna, Copenhagen, London, Berlin as well as Cleveland, Boston, Harvard and Penn–all the collecting loci of the 19th and early 20th centuries when the good stuff was gotten out of Egypt.

That said, point one points to a typical problem: the Met’s intent to put on not just a comprehensive but an exhaustive exhibition, exhausting both the subject matter and the museum visitor. As is frequently the case, the early galleries are crowded and the final galleries empty, as viewers’ interest and energy have flagged. In fact, the show could have told its story just as well with a third fewer objects (at least) by eliminating many of the minor pieces from the Met’s own collection. Whenever they had something relevant to the subject, regardless of artistic merit or historic importance, it was included, justifying their stewardship and bulking up the catalogue.

Another quick thought, actually the first one, was how appealing Egyptian art is. Part is its familiarity. Then its accessibility. The lines are clean, the contours elegant, the colors bold, the stone materials handsome, the hieroglyphics cool. This show especially featured the animal gods that anyone can relate to. There were massive sculptures, tiny amulets. The other related thought arose from the organization of the exhibition by subject, not chronology. There was art from 3000 BCE alongside a similar piece from 300 BCE and you’d have a hard time finding a huge difference. We knew that Egyptian art followed formulas, but this was a stark reminder.

Even though the art is largely formulaic, some pieces sing more than others, or stand out as masterworks, or at least more museum-worthy. There was nothing about “Art” in this show; it was all about who or what was represented and what that meant in the Egyptian cosmology. Nor was there any discussion of the pieces’ composition, which would be a fascinating subject in itself. What’s the difference in source, usage, symbolism among granite, diorite, greywacke, metagraywacke, green schist, sandstone, limestone?

What my initial visit invites me to do is go back and look for the art. Pick out and photograph my ten or so favorite works of art, not based on their status as divinities but for visual appeal. After all, isn’t that the primary role of an art museum?