Showing posts with label Museums. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Museums. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 5, 2018

Customs House Museum Show, Clarksville, TN - September 6th to November 20. 2018

 "The End of the Beginning" oil, 30"x24"

I'm really excited to say that I was invited to participate in a group show opening this week at the Customs House Museum in Clarksville, TN.  I'll be exhibiting four of my paintings at this Women Painting Women show and all will be for sale at the show.

The invited artists are:

Linda Tracey Brandon
Elena Burykina
Alia El-Bermani
Gaela Erwin
Ann Piper
Tonja Sell
Pamela Wilson 

Thank you so much, curator Terri Jordan, for all your hard work and for inviting me to take part in this wonderful show!

There will be a reception for the exhibit on October 25th. For more information click here.



"Up", oil, 12.25" x 12.25"


"Compline", oil, 64"x48"


"Read to Me", oil, 20" tondo

Friday, April 3, 2015

"Portrait of Edouard and Marie-Louise Pailleron" by John Singer Sargent

 

Portrait of Edouard and Marie-Louise Pailleron, oil 60" x 69" by John Singer Sargent (1881)

This painting is currently at the National Portrait Gallery in London, as part of the Sargent show "Portraits of Artists and Friends". It's up until May 25, 2015 in London and then it travels to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York (opening June 30th, 2015).  90 of Sargent's works are being displayed; many are usually in private or out-of-the-way locations, so it's very special to see a grouping like this.

I was lucky enough to see the show with my artist friend Ilaria Rosselli del Turco (click on her link to the right of the blog text). Ilaria is a wonderful companion for general museum adventures. She sees paintings in a somewhat different way than I do and it's a treat to bounce ideas off such an intelligent and talented person.

I should write about the entire Sargent show but since it takes me forever to write a blogpost these days, I think I will just focus on this painting, which I was particularly eager to see. It's usually in Boise, Idaho, I believe. (Another big draw for me was Sargent's Portrait of Dr. Pozzi. The handsome doctor deserves his own blog post, maybe I will get to that one of these days.)

Marie-Louise was 11, Edouard was 16, and John Singer Sargent was 25 years old the year this painting was created. The painting was created over a stretch of several months; Marie-Louise said later that she remembered eighty-three sittings. (I've heard various figures for the sittings, but, still...!) As you might imagine, the sessions didn't always go smoothly. Marie-Louise later wrote that she and her brother had argued with the artist about such matters as what clothing to wear and the way her hair was to be arranged.

I love this painting for so many reasons. That fiery red background and the sharp dark silouhette of the boy's suit are theatrical and dramatic. The complexity of the whites and creamy halftones in the dress are a triumph of skill. The rich orientalism of the Persian carpet adds a sense of mystery and luxury. Marie-Louise's arched hand is marvelously painted and manages to be graceful and childish at the same time. I stared at it at the Museum for a long time. The bracelet is wonderfully impastoed, set in carefully and confidently over the softly brushed flesh of the wrist.

Their expressions are restrained and ambiguous. They're not exactly happy to be sitting there, and they look like they might say something rude to that young painter who was taking forever to paint them, though I'll bet children were a little better behaved back then, so they bit their tongues. Edouard seems to be thinking especially dark thoughts, probably about all the better things he had to do with his time.

Think about how very different this painting is from a portrait of two siblings that might have been painted today by any number of professional painters. Maybe this is just an aspect of being American, or maybe it's an aspect of growing up in the 19th century.  American portrait painters today almost always portray relentlessly cheery, sunny and upbeat American children.  I don't know whether it's because the American clients prefer cheery children, or whether the artists themselves are cheery, or we are all eating too much sugar, but that does seem to be the norm. These two are solemn and serious.

The thing that strikes me when I see Sargent's paintings in person - in photos also, but more strongly in person - is his strong sense of design and composition. I've converted the photo of the painting to black and white and then posterized it to a few values so that you can get a sense of what I'm thinking.


Sargent has done things like value massing and making those masses unequally sized. And can you see that jagged diagonal that runs left to right? I got very excited about this at the museum. I did a crude sketch below to show you (red line). Once I saw left to right wave movement in this painting, I started seeing it in some other Sargent paintings, too. It's not only a way to connect two shapes in a way that's subtle; it's also a way to include the energy of the diagonal with the rather static shapes of the children.



There's just much to learn from a Sargent in addition to the way he puts down paint.



Friday, October 25, 2013

"Sir Duncan Campbell" by Sir Henry Raeburn

I get over to San Francisco pretty frequently and when I do, I try to get to the Legion of Honor Museum and visit "Sir Duncan Campbell" by artist Sir Henry Raeburn (1756 - 1823) . The painting is usually hung at eye level, gazing down benignly into your own eyes, since Campbell was clearly painted on a somewhat elevated model stand.



"Sir Duncan Campbell"  Image taken from this site.

I have tremendous respect and admiration for Raeburn. Born in Edinburgh, Scotland and orphaned, he taught himself how to paint by working with a jeweler, painting miniatures. After deciding to pursue portrait painting as a career, he married well, met the famous English painter Joshua Reynolds and then went to Italy to study art for two years. Raeburn returned to Edinburgh and started his very successful career in commissioned portraiture.



  "Charles Hay, Lord Newton",   by Sir Henry Raeburn, image from this site.


Raeburn's painting technique is characterized by bold brushwork, dramatic lighting and a sensitivity to the characteristics of the individuals he painted. His paint handling is fluid and expressive, with remarkable control of tonal relationships. Sitters would come to his studio and be entertained by his wit and good nature as the painter worked on capturing the likeness. He seemed to have an immediate and fresh response to his sitters; he had "... an unpremeditated view of the outcome, which meant a minimum of planning and little preliminary 'drawing' on the canvas in the sense that [English painter Sir Thomas Lawrence] would have understood the term." Duncan Thomson, Raeburn: The Art of Sir Henry Raeburn, Scottish National Portrait Gallery, Edinburgh 1997. This meant that some of his paintings evidence signs of overpainting and changes as the painting progressed. It also means he employed a variety of paint techniques throughout his life. Many of his paintings are broadly worked in the manner of Velasquez, but he also painted portraits which are subtle and nuanced.

Raeburn worked sight-size, meaning that he set up his easel next to the podium for his sitters. His studio was lit by a large north-facing window which he had built for his use, and also installed a complex series of shutters to control the flow of light into the room.


Thomson, Ibid., page 24. My scan, which is a little fuzzy, sorry.

Darren Rousar has written a wonderful post on Raeburn and his sight-size technique on his Studio Rousar site here.  Rousar's site is a terrific source of information about painters working in the realist tradition, I highly recommend it to artists.

My books and my research online indicates that Raeburn apparently left very few drawings or preparatory sketches. However, around ten years ago, in the early days of Ebay, my husband found this online, "Portrait Drawing of a Lady, by Sir Henry Raeburn." He paid around $200 for it. It has no particular provenance except that it came from Canada. Is it a fake? I suppose so, but well, here it is anyway. If anybody reading this is a Raeburn expert I hope you'll email me. A few years ago, I did get to go to Scotland and briefly thought I would take this with me to show the experts up in Edinburgh, but then I thought I might not be able to get back out of the country with it.


"Portrait of Lady" by...... ?...

Meanwhile, I try to sketch Raeburns whenever I'm in museums. I often don't have much time; it depends who I'm with, but I do stand and draw them whenever I can. Raeburn was amazingly prolific in his career and his paintings are widely distributed. One of my best experiences was in the sparsely-attended museum in Dublin. The museum guards wanted to bring me a chair and were extremely nice to me, especially after I told them I had distant Irish roots. This is what I did with Sir Duncan Campbell in San Francisco:



My little sketch.


Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Narrative Art, Part Two: "The Raft of the Medusa"

"The Raft of the Medusa" by Theodore Gericault. Photo from Wikipedia. One of my favorite paintings, hanging at the Louve.

First, a little background: in 1816 the French frigate Medusa ran aground off the coast of what is now Mauritania. The lifeboats could not carry everyone, so 147 passengers and crew were left to drift on a hastily constructed liferaft, which they endured for 13 days, suffering terrible hardships. Only 15 of the 147 survived the ordeal. The incident became an international scandal.

Gericault was a young painter (he was only 27 when he painted this) and the story of the tragedy fascinated him. He created this large, non-commissioned work by doing a lot of intense research, including interviewing two of the survivors, and went to morgues to learn about how he could best depict dead flesh. This painting caused an immediate sensation and helped launch his too-brief career.  Gericault died young at 32 but his reputation far outlasted him and he became one of the leading lights of French Romanticism.

Gericault went through many preparatory oil sketches in the design of this massive painting, as you can imagine - he wanted to get the design right and spent much time in the planning stages of this piece. But after he decided on a composition, he seems to have painted directly on the canvas without preparatory sketches:

[GĂ©ricault's method] astonished me as much as his intense industry. He painted directly on the white canvas, without rough sketch or any preparation of any sort, except for the firmly traced contours, and yet the solidity of the work was none the worse for it. I was struck by the keen attention with which he examined the model before touching brush to canvas. He seemed to proceed slowly, when in reality he executed very rapidly, placing one touch after the other in its place, rarely having to go over his work more than once. There was very little perceptible movement of his body or arms. His expression was perfectly calm ... 
Quote from Wikipedia.

One of the problems with this painting, by the way, is that Gericault used bitumen as one of his colors, which degrades over time to a kind of treacle, eventually destroying much of the painting. I've also heard that there is a problem with Gericault's white in this piece.

I'm including this painting in my narrative art series for many reasons, but first I want to point out that it segues from what I was talking about the other day. It's an example of changing the viewer's perspective to maximize impact for narrative purposes. When I talk about the viewer's perspective, I mean that this scene is painted as if the artist were standing on a boat just a little to the back and off to the right of the raft. This is not quite a bird's eye view, but it is a broad, omniscient view, and it might be interesting to contemplate how the artist could have swiveled this around a bit to portray this scene while facing the waving figure, for example, or perhaps a dying-person point of view from the raft. Both options would have changed the way we interpret this piece, though possibly in a subtle and hard to describe way. The way it is depicted here seems as if Gericault is not only making a statement about the horrors of this incident and the dramatic rescue of the few survivors, but that he is also making a statement about the perennial hope of mankind for some kind of rescue. You don't have to know a thing about the historical background of this massive work to be moved by it. It has a broader and more universal appeal.

I think that this painting also shows an internal, left to right sequencing, from the death and desolation on the left, through life and hope climaxing at the the top of the composition as the crewman frantically waves to the passing ship for help.

Gericault spent 18 months on this painting, working intensely. It obviously took over his life for a while, as you can imagine working on a painting this size (193.3 in. x 282.3 in., or, 16 feet x 23.5 feet). He was consumed by this painting. Gericault is one of my heros.

If you get to the Louve, there is a big bench in front of this painting where you can sit and gaze up at it, imagining yourself part of the raft, or maybe you can imagine yourself becoming Gericault for a time, trying to get this all down on this massive canvas.

Sunday, September 29, 2013

The Laib Wax Room

There is a little room lined with beeswax at the Phillips collection in Washington, D.C.  Designed and installed by the German artist Wolfgang Laib, you can read about it here.
To experience this art form, you remove all your loose gear, like handbags or big cameras so as not to scratch the walls and then you leave them right outside the opening where they are guarded by a serious lady with a mysterious accent. Then you stand inside the quiet room and inhale the smell of beeswax, which is actually nice. The color of beeswax is lovely, too, similar to amber.

I think you are supposed to notice the feelings you have and whether they concern your union with nature. In a roundabout way, this did happen to me. I started to worry about all the stuff I had to remove and put outside the door:  my handbag, with my wallet and my mobile phone, not to mention everything else I need. Could I trust the guard to keep an eye on it? What if I got an important text while I was standing there and couldn't get to my phone?

Thoughts like these made me realize how attached I am to my belongings. Was that the goal of this exhibit, our neurotic attachment to technology and our increasing alienation from the natural world? I don't know, but being in the room made me consider the fact that I am really attached to my wallet and my mobile phone, at the expense of having a quiet moment thinking about claustrophobia, the inside of a candle, how it would feel to be one of those fossilized insects that is suspended in amber, whether the amber jewelry that professes to be amber is actually yellowish plastic from China, the mean behavior of Queen bees, the worrying decrease of the world's honeybee population, whether Germany is plagued by Africanized Killer Bees of the sort that are terrorizing parts of Arizona, and if people who are deathly allergic to bees would also react badly to being near several pounds of beeswax.

I like some contemporary, interactive art. It frequently stimulates the mind and draws people into museums who might otherwise not go in. It keeps the mind fresh and curious and we are challenged to discover new paradigms and re-think some cherished beliefs. Many of the visuals/sounds/smells/experiences are interesting and sometimes very beautiful and memorable.

I think artists should be encouraged to express themselves any way they like - well, I guess there are some limits to this, but generally speaking - it's just that I also have a lot of concerns about how art is marketed and valued. Art in general seems extraordinarily susceptible to corrupt marketing practices and unregulated Ponzi-type scenarios. I have no idea how much this wax room is worth or who paid for it and I have no idea as to how much it should be worth. How is something like this valued? Does supply, demand and resale factors guide valuation? How does the art market guide valuation, exactly? Does talent and skill matter at all or is novelty the deciding factor?

And what about hype and marketing? Is it really all dependent upon... buzz? (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Meanwhile, I had a dream that night involving wax and cellular phones, which may make its way into a painting. If  I paint my painting and it turns out well (keep your fingers crossed for me) then the visit to this little room was to me, at least, worth the price of the museum admission. You just never know where inspiration will land on you.






Friday, September 27, 2013

"Landscape with the Fall of Icarus"


This is one of the paintings I grew up looking at, in one of the Time/Life Art Series books I kept checking out from the library.  There were not a lot of paintings to see in my town but there was a wonderful library with art books. The first famous painting I remember seeing in person was at a school field trip to the Detroit Museum of Arts. Please, people, do not sell off the paintings at the Detroit Museum of Arts.

This painting was long attributed to Pieter Brueghel, but since it's an oil and Brueghel worked in tempura, it's now thought to be a copy by a student. It shows the moment that Icarus, son of Daedalus, plunges into the ocean as a result of the candle wax melting off the self-made feathered wings (while escaping from a tower with Daedalus, the boy had defied his father and flew too close to the sun, thus melting the wax that held his wings to his arms).

I liked this painting as a child because I knew about the Icarus story and I was fascinated by the fact that at first glance, this painting doesn't seem to be about the fall of Icarus at all. It seems to be a painting about a farmer plowing his field, though how you can plow fields that steeply inclined is a mystery to me. Far away in the background, a boy with wings is falling from the sky into the ocean, and nobody notices, they just go on about their business.

As a child, you identify with the boy falling into the ocean and of course being an alarmist even then, I figured, well, yes, awful things happen all the time, even to children and anyway, you could see that the bird wing experiment was a pretty dumb concept to begin with.

But as I got older I got the point that is made by the poets that wrote about this painting -bad things happen, and yet the world moves on, largely oblivious. People keep planting the fields, people go about their business, boats sail by and a miraculous being who tried to achieve something incredible dies instead and it all goes without notice.

Of course, this is not the point of the Icarus myth itself. The point of the myth is to obey authority and avoid hubris, as if that is ever a fun couple of objectives. But the point of the painting is, I think, much more interesting. The artist has made a very interesting comment on human nature and how  we are the center of our own world, often to the exclusion of others and some very interesting events. If you don't doubt that we think we are the center of the world, go look at Facebook and watch the artists talk about themselves. "Well, enough about me, tell me, what do you think of my work?" (And yes I am just as bad, I guess.)

The real point of this post is that you can interpret a painting a million different ways. It's not just the knowledge and intent of the artist that matters, it's the knowledge and intent of the observer, too. A painting is a dialog. We need good, educated viewers, just like we need good, educated artists. If you don't know the legend of Icarus, how will you understand this painting? Well, you'll get something out of it, and it could be interesting, and you might be really impressed by the whole steep hill plowing reference, but you won't get as much out of it. If you didn't know the myth, part of the language between you and the artist would be lost. Ars longa, vita breva, etc. but ars gets a lot more breva if we lose a part of our cultural heritage. You could listen to the story on your headphones, but wouldn't it be better if you knew a little something about it in advance of your museum trip?

Now you'll have to go and Wiki the legend of Icarus if you don't know it.

There are a few excellent poems written about this painting. I'm going to write out the poem by W.H. Auden, "Musee des Beaux Arts", otherwise you'll be too busy to go and find it:

Musee des Beaux Arts
W. H. Auden

About suffering they were never wrong,
The old Masters: how well they understood
Its human position: how it takes place
While someone else is eating or opening a window or just walking dully along;
How, when the aged are reverently, passionately waiting
For the miraculous birth, there always must be
Children who did not specially want it to happen, skating
On a pond at the edge of the wood:
They never forgot
That even the dreadful martyrdom must run its course
Anyhow in a corner, some untidy spot
Where the dogs go on with their doggy life and the torturer's horse
Scratches its innocent behind on a tree.
In Breughel's Icarus, for instance: how everything turns away
Quite leisurely from the disaster; the ploughman may
Have heard the splash, the forsaken cry,
But for him it was not an important failure; the sun shone
As it had to on the white legs disappearing into the green
Water, and the expensive delicate ship that must have seen
Something amazing, a boy falling out of the sky,
Had somewhere to get to and sailed calmly on.


Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Guest Blogpost: Ilaria Rosselli del Turco on the BP Award vs. The Boochiver Award

A quick note: I now have a link on the right side of the Blog to subscribe via email to these blog posts. I'm trying to keep this up on a regular, if not daily, basis, so thanks for reading.

A lot of us from the WPW (R)evolution show at Principle Gallery last weekend naturally ended up in the museums in Washington, D.C., a short hop on the commuter train from Alexandria where the gallery is located.

Can I just say something here? Is it possible that the same minds that brought you the U.S. tax code wrote the instructions on this ticketing machine for the Washington D.C. Metro? Furthermore, the kiosk containing an actual person who might answer your questions is located in the area after you insert your ticket into the turnstyles. I guess you could yell across the room, but somehow it seems like a design flaw - you have to select payment and pay before you can get to the spot where you can ask somebody how much you have to pay. Why, it's downright Sisyphussian in its potential frustration.



But press on in your journey, because the National Portrait Gallery is a wonderful place. I saw so many memorable pieces there.

My brilliant friend Ilaria Rosselli del Turco has written this insightful blog post about the difference between the prestigious BP Portrait Award based at the National Portrait Gallery UK (she was in the contest a few years ago) and the Outwin Boochever Portrait Award now being exhibited at the National Portrait Gallery of the United States. (Go over and read Ilaria's blog for a while. She is funny, incredibly talented, passionate and very, very smart. She had Washington D.C. all figured out while I was still looking for coffee. But she did look to the right once when stepping off the curb. How many Brits do we lose every year this way!?)



Ilaria is in front of some trash cans, pointing to the National Portrait Gallery sign. I think we were considering making some kind of performance art piece out of this but it was never fully realized.

In her blog post linked above, Ilaria includes a lot of good photos, links and much insight to the current Outwin Boochever show.

I agree with Ilaria about many things but I disagree with her on one thing - okay, maybe two things, including the number of times a person should drink cappuccino during the course of the day - but, personally, I don't like that this competition clumps paintings, photographs, videos and sculptures into one contest. This would be fine as an exhibit based on a portrait theme but I feel it is not a service to any of the artists working in the various art forms to compete directly against each other in a mass competition. The BP contest, meanwhile, is purely a painting contest and encourages the art of painting as a separate art form. In my opinion there is a lot about the technique of painting that can be examined, discussed and judged which sets it on a different platform that the technique of, say, photography, which has it's own techniques and possibilities. It's a little like having discus throwers and javelin throwers in the same Olympic event. If there's going to be prizes, let's spread out the prizes and include more artists in more categories.

I would have liked to see a portrait sculpture made out of American snack food. What could be more American than that? I've been thinking about this all evening. Fritos, crushed potato chips, Oreos, M & Ms, those pull-apart Twizzler strings for hair... . You are what you eat. By the way, did you know that the typical American's DNA is slowly being readjusted and our cells now indicate that we are genetically very similar to a Dorito?

"We're like corn chips walking because we really have a very, very large fraction of corn in our diets, and we actually can't help it because it's an additive in so many of the foods we find on the market shelves."  - see the quote and full story here.

For all I know, this sort of sculpture has been done before, but I'm putting it out there in the blogosphere because I would love to see somebody do this. Maybe I'll get to this myself in my spare time.

Anyway, as Ilaria says, it's a great show - do go see it.


Sunday, September 15, 2013

"The Laughing Cavalier"

The laughing cavalier isn't laughing and he probably isn't a cavalier, so you'll just have to accept that.

I know what you're thinking: "Frans Hals! Uncomfortably crass facial expressions, occasionally too slapdash, tsk tsk tsk,", but take a good look at this and try to deny that this painting can teach you how to paint.


Photo is from The Art Renewal Center

I think this is marvelous example of what an artist can do with paint. It looks like a tightly finished painting until you really start looking at it and then you see how the paint has been applied - broad strokes, then looser ones, layering, alla prima flourishes - it's just all there. He has modeled form beautifully and subtly but has also allowed his brush to dance around when it gets a chance to let loose, in the sleeves and embroidery. Franz has condensed some values and expanded upon others and has concentrated detail on the important facial characteristics. It's "about" the form and yet ... it isn't all about the form.

He isn't trying to impress us with excess detail and finish, though the painting is quite detailed and finished. He isn't trying to show off all the noodly little bits that you see when you  zoom in on something, he's showing us the parts that mattered, what he could see and summarize. He's still being sensitive and discriminating but he is having a little fun there, too. He's made judgment calls. He's focusing selectively. Look how subtle the value change is in that hat, it's a value 10 with a value 9 [on some scales, values 1 and 2, respectively - why are there different value scales?! can't artists agree on anything?] to show where the light hits, that's all he says in terms of value changes for black, the hat basically is an interesting shape setting off his (detailed, paleish) face against the thinly painted neutral background.

So, Hals is exploring form while painting something beautiful and sensitive, includes bravura paint application and textured patterning, fits it all into a memorable strong design composition and lures us in with that wonderful hint of an amused smile. Is this a memorable painting? It sure is.

I recently read an essay by a critic which gives an in-depth analysis of this painting. I can't find it and I have a feeling it's somewhere in my art book library. It's also possible I read it someplace on the internet. I'm going to go ahead and post this anyway and if I find it later, I'll edit this and let you know.

I spent a very long time looking at this painting at the Wallace collection in London a while ago. When I stand in front of paintings I try to have a sketchbook with me so that I can remember what I'm learning, and I learned a lot here. Usually I move aside for the ubiquitous folks with their headphones so they can peer in and examine the surface, or at least they pretend to. Sometimes these people just stand in front of me for a long time, just to stand in front of me, I guess. (Why? They even do this when the rest of the room is empty. I'm not there that long, I'm not carefully copying every single thing, I'm just sketching with a pencil and making notes to myself. I'm usually off to the left of the painting, or to the right...why can't people just... stand next to me? Is that so bad? ) Once, in New York, a horrible lady with headphones asked a guard to move me aside because she thought I was standing too long (over two minutes) in front of a William Orpen painting and I was interfering with the sequence of her headphone narration. 

I had a really nice experience at the The Wallace Collection, though. Try to go there if you make it to London. I can't remember if there were people with headphones there or not. While drawing, I looked up to see a little British boy, maybe, oh, 10 or so, timidly standing behind me with a notebook and he had his pencil out to draw the painting too - not as part of a school project, it was because he seemed to just want to do it. The fact that I was doing it made him decide it would be okay if he did it, too. I gently asked him to show me his drawing, he shyly did so, and we had a wonderful quiet little chat. I love artists.