Sadly, and oh so typically, you have chosen to write about something that instead of seeing this as a somewhat compelling and interesting approach to art in public places and the current perception of museums and their "collections" and how the public chooses to interact or more importantly-not interact-with Art and museums. Obviously this is a PR attempt to create a buzz and get interest back at the Frye (not to mention restore the original intenion of its benefactor namesake, which is another story and travesty all its own) which has of late been perceived and held in public opinion (outside of the hipster art world of your cronies) that it's a dead misguided agenda of contemporary art (not to mention the boring and tired factor-which was extremely high before your friend Rasputin "left for a better position"). Truth be told Jen museums have to do something to gather public support and interest with the public If you went back into the archives of the Frye you would likely see the highest attended venues were not the hijacked legacy of the contemporary art venues of Robin Held and clique.you know,the ones that turned it into just one more banal, boring, and mediocre museum venue in the Northwest for guess what "contemporary art". Honestly people how many centers in museums for contemporary art does this town need? It's gotten laughable and the elitist disregard for histrionics and tradition in our Northwest has become shameful. If there's one trend that we will be look back on in Seattle as a huge mistake it will be the disregard of Seattle's art history traditions-those hijacked by "thinkers" for the desperate need to be noticed and recognized-feel relevant a d "modern"-all at the expense of support, history, and tradition. It's about time somebody got around to trying a different agenda and some alternative approaches to creating interest In the Northwest for art and museums. It certainly isn't happening your way.

Well, the Frye's main collection was acquired by a sodo meatpacker who was farting around in Austria when he (& spouse) could have been in Paris. Dead cows aside, I might have voted for their SERIOUSLY CREEPY version of Susanna & the Elders, I don't think I've really looked at that painting in nearly 15 years, but it Lingers....

"curating" is becoming synonymous with "editing" in some circles. I am not sure the word curate has any meaning any more.

So what makes "Stella" "cheesy"?

Do I like it? Not particularly. There's something a bit off about it, especially in the woman's face.

Is it inferior? Perhaps - I wouldn't call it out as a museum-quality piece, but that's just me. Is it of poor quality or shoddy, as the Free Dictionary definition of 'cheesy' calls out? Is it "of poor quality through being overdramatic, excessively emotional or clichéd, trite, contrived, shoddy"? (H/T to Wikitionary)

It's not Charles-August Mengin's "Sappho". Is it trying to be? Why is it 'cheesy' and not simply mediocre?

I suppose Stella was never before exhibited because they found it a trifle too strong, even for a public art gallery.

I found much to like about this exhibit. It's a fun approach to the challenge of displaying the permanent collection. I was amused by many of the social media comments. And enjoyed visiting with some of my Frye favorites.

However, I was disturbed by the manner of hanging those framed pieces with lots of space around them. Very few of those works have enough quality to command an entire wall. And the decision to paint some of the walls bright yellow... A 21st century treatment for perky old collection that can only try its best. Like making an elderly lady wear young fashions.

I look forward to another traditional salon-style arrangement. Where I can sit on a bench and gaze at several paintings at a time.