THE MYSTERY OF APPEARANCE


HAUNCH OF VENISON GALLERY – 103 NEW BOND STREET, LONDON

“TEN OF BRITAIN’S MOST IMPORTANT POST-WAR PAINTERS”

This was my first visit to this gallery, at the top end of Bond Street so not far from Oxford Circus or Bond Street tube stations.

It has two floors and plenty of white space, but no seats to sit!  Why do galleries never put seats so you can either sit and look at the work, or make notes, which I like to do?

I was intrigued to read a description of the exhibition, The Mystery of Appearance, which ended today, 18 February, see here:

THE MYSTERY OF APPEARANCE

The painters are well-known to me, so I thought to see something familiar from previous gallery visits.

There were some things which are new to me, but the two big Hockneys I have seen before certainly.  Apparently only three of these ten artists are alive today.

The two painters who prefer to use very dense, textured oils have similar works on display, Leon Kossof and Frank Auerbach.   I don’t like them.  There is an Auerbach with a title including the name ‘Gerda Boehm’  of 1971-73 which is aesthetically unpleasant.  One painting by Kossoff titled Seated Woman No 2 of 1959 reminded me of a very large cow turd which had been played about with – brown and nasty.

The Hockney painting of a young man reclining on a bed, The Room Tarzana, showed his ability to paint tufted rugs and venetian-blind slatted doors, but the figure has a strangely floating arm, rather oddly positioned buttocks and very tiny feet.

A small female nude by Lucien Freud of 1956 seems to be focussed on a view of her bottom, with very large feet which reminded me of feet painted by Francis Bacon.

There is a large Bacon painting  (Pope 1) which is very familiar, in purples, violets and blacks.

The Euan Uglow paintings did not seem so exciting in actuality, they seem to present themselves better in reproductions.  Maybe it is the very very pink paint in the large female nude study?

There is a small sketchy head by Michael Andrews which appeals, maybe because it is so very sketchy.  As a contrast there is a very large painting of Norwich Castle Keep, which is  ‘Lord Mayor’s Reception, Norwich’.  This is apparently oil on canvas but seems to be oil on photograph, the black and white photo shows in large parts of the image.  I presume the photograph was transferred to the canvas and then he painted over it in parts.  Since I have just returned from looking at an exhibition in Norwich Castle Art Gallery, and walked through the keep, this was of interest and I felt that he had tackled a very difficult and boring subject with a certain amount of panache. Follow this link to see it: The Lord Mayor’s Reception

However, to sum up, all these painters seemed to working without any lightness or humour, a lot of works are dour and gloomy, the paint looked as it it needed dusting,  I made a note in my little book that the artists were, from these representational painting, all very serious and po-faced.

There were three working drawings, squared up, by Patrick Caulfield, and I wonder at the decision to hang these, since they did not seem to stand up to hanging alongside finished work by him, of the usual bottles.  Two are of very accurate-looking architectural drawings.

I was interested to see the black and white portrait photographs in the basement, in the ‘bookshop’, which somehow seemed refreshingly honest and direct, unlike some of the paintings upstairs. They are by Bruce Bernard in the 1980s, of Bacon, Freud, Andrews and Auerbach.

Portrait of Francis Bacon 1984 by

Bruce Bernard

It was a relief to come out into the afternoon Bond Street glitz which in a way seemed so much more interesting and vibrant than these rather dejected works.

EXHIBITION OF WATTEAU DRAWINGS AT ROYAL ACADEMY


JEAN ANTOINE WATTEAU EXHIBITION OF DRAWINGS

AT THE ROYAL ACADEMY PICCADILLY LONDON

In the small galleries at the top of Royal Academy building, is a collection of drawings in conté crayon by Jean Antoine Watteau, French artist working mainly in Paris in 18th Century.

Drawings are small, of course, and  were used as working sources by the artist who apparently kept them in bound volumes.  Interesting to read that he worked on the drawings ‘without any specific painting in mind’.   In another part of the galleries I read ‘he rarely made compositional studies’.

There are no paintings in the exhibition but you can see them at the Wallace Collection in London, and of course if you can travel, in other collections in cities such as Paris and Berlin.

Particularly compelling and engaging are the drawings of young women and girls.  Heads predominate but there are quite a few full length.

I read that Watteau ‘rarely used drawing to sketch compositional ideas for paintings’ .  I tend to believe that most artists do so (sketch a painting out first, I mean, if it is a representational painting).

Also he grouped the figures ‘so as to accord with a landscape background that he had already conceived or prepared”;  this suggests that he worked up the background of his painting and then used figures from his drawing collection to people the landscape.

He is renowned for fetes champetres, where the courtly collection of ladies and gentlemen, in silks and satins,  desport themselves pleasurably in idyllic surroundings.

 

DULWICH PICTURE GALLERY, NORMAN ROCKWELL EXHIBITION


NORMAN ROCKWELL EXHIBITION ENDS 27 MARCH 2011

There is a comparison to be made at the Dulwich Picture Gallery,  between the work of American artist and illustrator Norman Rockwell and the Spanish painter of the 17th century, Murillo.

Make sure you take the opportunity to look at Murillo’s paintings after seeing the Rockwell, then  walk down to the end of the gallery and admire the beautiful Vermeer, which is ‘A Lady at the Virginals with a Gentleman‘ on loan from Her Majesty the Queen.

First, the Norman Rockwell is full of work that brings a smile to the lips, and a great deal of amused appreciation from the viewers.  I noticed several people pointing out dogs.  You probably know the Saturday Evening Post magazine covers,.  They are famous, and all 323 of them are on display.

EARLY STUDIES

More interesting are the actual studies and examples of the originals, which were completed in oils.  A few are in gouache.  Particularly attuned to today’s tastes are the studies such as ‘The Problem  We All Live With’, in gouache and  ‘Peace Corps in Ethiopia’.  The paint is fluid and yet dense, with texture and freedom of application, brush marks are still there and the colours are still brilliant. They dated from 1964 and 1966.

Norman Rockwell’s early works are also in very good condition, luminous and obviously  owing much to Rockwell’s admiration of masters such as Vermeer.  That is why it is so interesting to be able to compare the two painters at Dulwich.

DULWICH PICTURE GALLERY, DULWICH VILLAGE, LONDON SE21 7AD

I consider the sentimental subjects and choice of models spoils the work of Norman Rockwell, unfortunately – work which was of course not created to appear in hallowed halls of famous art galleries but to be seen on a paper journal’s cover, produced weekly, laughed at and then thrown away.

WORKING METHODS

The artist’s working method was explained.  In particular I read about his creation of ‘Charwomen in Theatre’, a study of 1946.  Rockwell visited the theatre in New York, made sketches and had a photographer along to do photos of the setting, the seats, the lights and darks.  Back home he had two neighbours posing as the charladies which in the picture are reading the programme, surrounded by bucket and mops.  The colours here again are just delicious, the ladies blocked in freely and the result is tactile and fresh.

There are a lot of little boys, elderly men, sailors, grim old women, dogs, courting couples.

‘It’s lovely, isn’t it?  I heard one young woman exclaim with delight.  For me the illustrated covers of Saturday Evening Post are too twee and ‘feelgood’, there are too many stock figures, funny animals, faces in grotesque grimace.

SHORT ON MALICE

One of the large displays of text which are on the walls of the gallery explain that Rockwell was ‘short on malice’ and I wonder which painter or illustrator is ‘long on malice’?  Maybe a cartoonist such as Gerald Scarf, but malice – with or without – seems a strong word to describe a visual creation.

MURILLO

Now to the Murillos just outside this exhibition.  There they are, two paintings, each of little boys, one with a cute dog.  Painted in the late 1660s, they are poor boys – they are not lovely, one child smiles.  Apparently Ruskin described them as ‘repulsive and wicked children’,  and the paintings showed  ‘mere delight in foulness’  (he was a bit weird anyway).  The paintings tell a story, just as the Rockwells do, why is the child with bread being cajoled by the boy with the dog?  You make up the answer.

VERMEER

The Vermeer is different again, bright, crisp shapes of the marble floor, the windows and walls, soft and slightly out of focus figures but no dog, no humour.  You can still make up the ending of the story.  Would you describe this as ‘photo-realism’?  It is more real than that.  Its realism with humanity.