For example, I like these two of Gainsborough's
(my favorite Pre-Ralphealite is Burne-JOnes)
Posted on 04/26/2005 9:58:22 PM PDT by nickcarraway
On the cover of my guidebook to St Petersburg's Hermitage is a painting of a woman in blue silk and white powder, hair flowing - a portrait by Thomas Gainsborough that hangs in the museum. This choice is flattering, until you notice that all the different language guides on the bookstand have nationally appropriate paintings. It's a naive bit of politeness. Not even we British go to the Hermitage to see Gainsborough.
British art, historically, has its charms. In addition to Gainsborough's perfumed rococo world, we have Constable and Turner. All three, if you have grown up with the swagging, blustering variability of British weather, are acute barometers of the national soul. But do their works make it into the world's top 10, or even top 100? Along with the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, the Birth of Venus and the rest of the indispensables, would there be room for Hogarth's March to Finchley, or even Constable's Leaping Horse? Of course not. It is certain that these local masterpieces are precisely that, local.
There is one exception, one British artist who would make it on to the list - probably represented by his portrayal of Newton on the sea bed with his dividers or, perhaps, Urizen using those same compasses to "fix the whole into another world better suited to obey His Will".
William Blake is far and away the greatest artist Britain has ever produced. I feel both elated and embarrassed to say that, because in recent years the critical reputation of the poet, printmaker and radical prophet of the French revolutionary era has been slipping, to say the least. Blake's Songs of Innocence and Experience and The Marriage of Heaven and Hell are never likely to be shifted from their place near the heart of English literature. But Blake thought of himself as a visual artist; he illuminated his self-published writings, illustrated Dante and Chaucer, and painted singular oils such as The Ghost of a Flea.
He has become one of those monuments whom it is considered timely to knock off their pedestal. In the 1990s he was given short shrift in Andrew Graham-Dixon's influential television history of British art, and when Tate Britain celebrated the millennium with a Blake show the vogue for belittling the Lambeth visionary went mainstream. I sat in front of the Late Review with my jaw hanging down at the spectacle of supposedly cultured people sneering at his draughtsmanship.
The latest belittling comes from academic research just announced that exposes him as a fumbling craftsman who (shock) didn't really create his prints in a starburst of insight but laboured patiently. The biggest insult in Blake's eyes, though, must be that Tate is unlikely to buy his recently rediscovered watercolours for Blair's Grave (no election reference intended) because it is keen to purchase Sir Joshua Reynolds' Portrait of Omai. Blake said Reynolds was "hired to Depress Art". Yet now apparently he is to lose out to the Georgian portraitist.
Tate Britain apparently thinks Reynolds a more urgent acquisition than Blake. But if the national museum of British art doesn't champion excellence in the field, who will? And Blake is as excellent as it gets.
I came back to Blake through Gainsborough, because Blake made me see the limitations of the portraits and landscapes I find so seductive. What is it that British art lacks? The extremes of existence, the contrary states of the human soul - good and evil. British art tends to be socially and topographically acute, but the greatest painters have stood on more metaphysical ground. They have speculated on life and death, angels and devils. Just like Blake.
Blake was perplexed by the things that should perplex people - moral absolutes, the limits of perception, the tragic duplicities by which we live. All this is expressed in his Songs of Innocence and Experience; who cannot recognise the corruption of inequality in his lines, "Pity would be no more, / If we did not make somebody Poor"?
There I go - quoting the poetry. You can't experience Blake's art in isolation from his language, and that is the real reason for his current devaluation. Britain has always been a literary culture but very recently we've fallen in love with visual art. Now we look to our past for great art - finding modern expression in a Constable mud patch.
We're kidding ourselves. British art has been minor compared to Shakespeare and Dickens. The world needs these writers but not our artists. Blake is the exception because he unifies the verbal and the visual and, uniquely, ensures that some of the central poetry in the language exists in pictures as well as words. The export order on the Blake watercolours expires at the end of May. There's still time to forget about Omai and buy great art for great art's sake.
You said..."Hands down, Turner is one of the greatest colorists--if not THE greatest colorists--of all time."
Turner is one of my favorite artists. For British art...its him and Lawrence.
But my friend....did you get to see the John Singer Sargeant show that toured about six years ago?
Your ideas about the greatest may change if you see what Sargeant produced as a body of work...both in oils and watercolors....landscapes and portraits.
It blew me away...I think he was arguably the greatest colorist and even better with light than Turner....and thats saying something. Overall I believe one of the greatest artists ever.
JMHO of course.
No argument here. Blake was overwrought. Turner was sublime and he had an enormous influence on the Impressionists. Way ahead of his time.
For example, I like these two of Gainsborough's
(my favorite Pre-Ralphealite is Burne-JOnes)
He is one of my top favorites (but he is not English, He's American)
I used to pop up to the Clark ARt Institute in Williamstown (Mass) to see his "Madame X" back in the 60's.
They now have his "Carolus Duran"...
I also paint copies of Old Masters/Impressinists/Pre-Ralphaelites, etc - in miniature. Below is a miniature (2 1/2" x 3")copy I painted in watercolor - copied from Sargent's "Lady Agnew" (Quite a contrast as he always did his subjects life size :o)
Sargent is one of the best. You are extremely talented, Maestro. When I did any artwork at all it was drawing people and that was a few decades ago. The only painting I do is restoration/touch-up, so I have a great appreciation for those who can actually paint, particularly in portraiture.
As to Blake, not my cup of tea. His faces all seem the same, plenty of roiling, brooding emotion but lacking in character. He seems more interested in muscle tone, rather like Michelangelo, than in personality. Of course, this is from a portraiture admirer, so it doesn't mean much in art critiquing.
No Freud?
No Bacon?
What a nonsense!
Good job..thats pretty amazing to do a reasonable likeness at that scale!
I have a Sargent book that has Lady Agnew on the cover.
Yes I realiza that Sargent was an American...although I believe he was actually born abroad and spent much of his adult life in Britain. He had a studio in London where he painted many British high society patrons.
I also have a small book of Sargent charcoal drawings of many of these people...they are pretty amazing.
What I meant is that in my mind Sargent was the greatest colorist of all...or certainly one of the greatest (depending on whether you like a more impressionist style like Cezanne etc)
Does this count as an art ping? Or was it more modern work you had in mind.
Anyway, ping.
LOL - I have the same book...
the painting of Duran from the Clark Art Institute - there is a ring on his hand that is a masterpiece all by itself - talk about light - he catches the light from inside the gem and in the gold - almost like you could reach out and take it off his hand. Unfortunately, it doesn't come thru' in the photo of the painting -and in the book, it's black and white ;O(
I cannot fathom the volume of his work - especially in that he painted full size.
But I fully understand why, after many years of doing commission portraits, he thoroughly tired of it - and spent the rest of his years painting what he wanted.
One of my turning points to stop portrait commissions was one I did of a little blond girl, tea-stained lace dress, deep pink carnation. The mother, when I delivered it, broke down crying - "Oh, it's so beautiful..." etc.
A few days later she called me and asked: "Could you change the background to match my living room wallpaper?"
When I felt I could speak without either laughing or hanging up - I asked, out of curiosity, "What color is that?"
"Black with big peach roses."
I explained that the background was part and parcel of the whole work - and to change it would throw off the rest, skin tones, etc. I refused but offered to take the painting back if she wished.
That scared her and I never heard another word. :O)
No, as long as it's art related, I'm interested usually. Thanks much for the ping, will ping the others now.
RE this thread, I agree with some of the posters in that I'd put Turner ahead of Blake. Gainesborough too, I think.
Art ping!
Anyone who wants on or off the art ping list, let me know.
Art ping!
Anyone who wants on or off the art ping list, let me know.
Anyone who would like to exhibit work in a "freeper art gallery" thread, would you please freepmail me? There are lots of artistic freepers. IMO, it would be nice to have a thread to exhibit freeper work.
Of course, given my predilections, the finest British art of all may be found in the Winchester Bible manuscript...
William Blake was an extraordinary man. He was a gifted prophet in satanic Georgian England. Hayley was one of his benefactors by the way.
don't sell yourself short - I think "them what critiques, do so 'cause they can't paint" - so use the artist's genius as a springboard to make a living ...
I believe we have an "innate recognition" of what is good art vs not...and that a painting that needs explaining isn't doing it's job - same as a poem. They stand on their own if they're good and need no long-winded explanations to be understood.
Or as I usually put it: "A poem/painting IS, period."
I have read recently that despite the fluidity of his painting, Sargent was extremely careful in his measurements, even using the sight size method, which would account for the life size work.
Whatever he did, though, his stuff is some of the best, IMO.
Unbelievable work...is that bible in Winchester Cathedral?
LOL...your story sounds typical. Its true that some people think of creative work...whether it be art...music...lterature...software or hardware design as a commodity.
They lose sight of the energy, dedication and inspiration that goes into producing something from nothing.
Ive often wondered how it must feel to be a supremely gifted genius creating masterworks...knowing inherently that you are producing works of great value...but having to endure an unappreciative, fickle, or even outright hostile public.
When you think of how Rembrandt and Mozart died...
On the subject of light....the most amazing picture I have ever seen for light...and you have to see it in person to really get the impact...is Sargents picture of the two children done at early twilight...with the lilys...what is the name of it...
LOL...your story sounds typical. Its true that some people think of creative work...whether it be art...music...lterature...software or hardware design as a commodity.
They lose sight of the energy, dedication and inspiration that goes into producing something from nothing.
Ive often wondered how it must feel to be a supremely gifted genius creating masterworks...knowing inherently that you are producing works of great value...but having to endure an unappreciative, fickle, or even outright hostile public.
When you think of how Rembrandt and Mozart died...
On the subject of light....the most amazing picture I have ever seen for light...and you have to see it in person to really get the impact...is Sargents picture of the two children done at early twilight...with the lilys...what is the name of it...
It's in the Winchester Cathedral Library, although for some reason I'm under the impression that a few of the pages have found their way into private collections (although I could very well be mistaken about that...)
IMO to really appreciate Sargent...you have to study his works live.
He is one of the very great ones...who produce all the details and the sense of the image or scene in your minds eye...though when you examine the brushwork up close you dont know where the details came from.
Sargent often told his students to travel abroad...to 'just see the light'. He gives you that real impression of the brilliant clear Italian / Mediterranean and high altitude mountain sunlight.
BTW...feel free to put me on your art list.
Thanks
Saw the stuff in the Met in February, just by chance. Had wanted to see the Sorolla's at the Hispanic Society, but since that turned out to be closed, we hurried down to the Met for a quick glance at the Sargent paintings they have there.
"IMO to really appreciate Sargent...you have to study his works live."
I'm always kind of shocked at how paintings that one has seen only in books or prints often look so different in life.
For instance, while I liked Anthony Van Dyke from seeing his stuff in a book, I was not terrifically excited by him. But when I had a chance to see his work in person at the Frick, I was completely in shock - the paintings were far better than I'd imagined, so much so that it seemed as if the subjects could walk right out of the pictures if they felt like it.
Sargent used to refer to them as "PAUGH-traits."
Where I work there are portraits of past judges hanging all over the halls and courtrooms. It's interesting to compare the styles . . . there was one guy who was sort of the "official Georgia State portraitist" . . . interestingly enough, he could alter his style to suit the wishes of the sitter. So while a number are quite boring official portraits, one or two he got a little wild with the brushwork and modeling and produced something worth looking at. Best portrait in the place was done by a Chinese guy working in a 'stable for hire' outfit - didn't recognize his name and have no idea where he went 'cause he's no longer working for them.
Exactly...I also share your appreciation of Van Dyke.
Its something how a truley great painting can dominate all the other very good art in a museum room....like its alive.
I love those 'Illuminations".
Reynolds and Gainsborough were hacks. Talented hacks, but hacks nonetheless.
But how can this guy think Blake is better than Turner? That simply does not compute. I think Constable should be up there as well.
Burne-Jones is o.k., but his women all look alike (at least they're not out of drawing, like Rosetti's). I'll put in a minority vote for Waterhouse. Burne-Jones never did anything like this (and, no, the Lady of Shalott doesn't count.):
I've found this especially true of the Dutch Masters and the Preraphaelites. The advent of digital photography offers much hope in the verisimilitude of published art images. Two of the biggest annoyances / obstacles faced by medieval art scholars and aficionados have been conventional photo images of stained glass windows and gilded pages. With stained glass the photographer would have to decide between shooting for the effect of the glasswork at the expense of the architecture holding it in place (or vicea versa) and similarly, the gilded page generally required a choice between the effects of the gold or other metallic leaf or the coloration of the paints and ink...you may have noticed this before where the gold takes on a dull, flat olive appearance.
Digital reproduction has allowed for manipulation of a reproduced image, that while not perfect, is a lot truer to the original than conventional photography allowed.
A poem should not mean
But be
-- Archibald MacLeish
Thanks alot!
You folks on this site are remarkable...
Now study that picture...the story is that Sargent painted this picture many times. He trashed every preliminary version in disgust...because he just couldnt 'get it'.
When you see the final product he was satisfied with..in person...you can understand how technically difficult this picture was to produce...even for a genius like Sargent.
His account of the painting in a letter he wrote to a friend is remarkable. He had to get out in the garden and lie in wait for the light. The light was only "right" for a few minutes each day, he drove himself half-mad trying to stretch those minutes as long as he could - and of course with the season changing the time changed too - arrrgggh!
I've always loved his stuff. The essence of the PRB was largely visual symbology...and the ideal woman stood for the ideal woman, regardless of the historical or mythological context. The PRB was trying to restore a visual vocabulary in which there was a finite limitation in the same sense our alphabet is limited to only 26 letters...if a face showed up over and over, it's just like that darned "E" that keeps (there's two of them together!) popping up when I type or write something. The artwork that generally stirs my strongest interest and passion is that of the middle ages, proto-renaissance and byzantine schools. Having said that, I still find DGR's "Annunciation," one of the most humanizing, humble and powerful depictions of that image in Western art....
lol...its ironic that true genius...in spite of the fact that genius can produce so much relatvely effortlessly...in relation to mere mortals...often works the hardest...pushes itself to achieve its own standards...far beyond what the norms or public taste would decree.
Sargent had to satisfy Sargent....his most demanding critic.
He gave up in despair on this one because he couldn't do perspective or proportion.
Thanks for the post; ping.
You really don't like him, do you? I think his despair greq out of more personal goings on...I think he would have been glad to have been able to more completely slip the bonds of perspective and proportion.
The late American artist Lucien Whiting Powell was greatly influenced by Turner (has been called the "American Turner" and well-known in the D.C. area). I was just wondering what happened to the Henderson collection of Lucien Whiting Powell's paintings.
Hey mon...youre welcome.
Glad you like the Bach!
Hey mon...youre welcome.
Glad you like the Bach!
Seriously, I think Rossetti had some good ideas, but his technical ability was nowhere near able to carry the load. If we blame personal goings-on for artistic incompetence, he certainly had enough throughout his life to excuse almost anything (I think digging up poor Elizabeth Siddals to retrieve some poems he had sentimentally placed in the coffin was right out, don't you?) But they hadn't even married yet when he painted this one.
Is that "Carnation, Lily, Lily, Rose"? - with the children holding Japanese lanterns?
this is a miniature I did of his "nude Egyptian Girl" - his was 73" tall in oil. my copy of 4" tall in watercolor ;o)
They have his "Madam X" - was it on display?
Back in the 60's, it was at the Clark Art Institute in Williamstown - I used to live close by and would go up there to spend hours - a lot just in front of this...and their main gallery then (before the additions were built) was all Renoir.
They had Degas, Manet, Manet, Cassatt, etc...
That's a nice one...I've always suspicioned we have a naughty monk up our family tree as I've always thought it would be a wonderful life just sitting on a high stool in an arched stucco, sun-flooded window, birds singing ala Assisi, painting illuminations.
Then I visited some of the old Missions in Calif. and peeking into some of the "cells" - felt right t'home. Just wanted to get my paint pots and move in, ;o)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.