I went to a gallery yesterday - the Sainsbury's Centre at UEA in Norwich. I usually love museums and galleries and feel energised and inspired by them. However, on this occasion, I wasn't. I think this is partly because I was hot and bothered... and also because I had an irresistible urge to write, so that dominated.
However, when I'd had coffee, finished writing etc. I went around the collection. I'm not sure whether the collection I saw is the permanent collection, or whether they change the displays regularly and have a lot more stuff in store. I suspect the former. The collection was largely about the human body and faces so there were lots of "primitive art" pre-Columbian stuff, items from 15th C Benin, some Chinese and Egyptian items and a lot of Native American things. There were also some 20thC paintings (a lot of Bacon, some Giacommetti and a Modigliani), the pride of the collection is clearly a Degas bronze of a young dancer. It was an interesting collection, although there was no classical stuff in it - so I wondered what it represented exactly: how "primitive" art influenced 20thC painting? Or was it just about the face and the body. Actually, there were other items - carved fish and a conch shell made out of glazed terracotta. I don't think this is the whole collection, as there were postcards of other items in the shop, but perhaps those came from exhibitions.
There were 4 exhibitions: I saw 3 of them, one of Art Nouveau - attractive but underwhelming - I sort of "did" Art Nouveau in the V&A a few years ago and this display didn't really tell me anything new - except how some of the artists had been inspired by engravings of flora and fauna in natural history texts. Darwin had a prominent place - but I'm not sure we can really say On the Origin of Species was the major influence for the development of Art Nouveau - it's just a fashionable trope. Another exhibition was a quite interesting photography one - with pictures of houses in the US and in Calcutta - details such as shrines, plates of food, sofas etc. The third one (I skipped the Manga exhibition) was a display of characters in Japanese comic books etc. this was mildly amusing - especially the characters who were real kittens dressed in vaguely superhero costumes. Wonder if I can get pictures of them.
Why wasn't this trip inspiring? Don't know - I like making connections - but in the exhibitions all the connections were made for me - in the main display it was so heavily themed that one could do nothing but make the most obvious observations: doesn't that Native American mask look exactly like the face on the Modigliani? One thing I did notice was a tiny Egyptian relief carving - dating to 2,300BC - in exactly the style of all Egyptian work up to the time of the Ptolemies. Another observation was that it was rather more beautiful than a great many other things on display. It is fascinating how many cultures develop an ugly style and stick with it. I really find the "lumpiness" of most Pre-Columbian art rather horrid. Yes, I can understand its fascination but I wouldn't give it house room.
However, when I'd had coffee, finished writing etc. I went around the collection. I'm not sure whether the collection I saw is the permanent collection, or whether they change the displays regularly and have a lot more stuff in store. I suspect the former. The collection was largely about the human body and faces so there were lots of "primitive art" pre-Columbian stuff, items from 15th C Benin, some Chinese and Egyptian items and a lot of Native American things. There were also some 20thC paintings (a lot of Bacon, some Giacommetti and a Modigliani), the pride of the collection is clearly a Degas bronze of a young dancer. It was an interesting collection, although there was no classical stuff in it - so I wondered what it represented exactly: how "primitive" art influenced 20thC painting? Or was it just about the face and the body. Actually, there were other items - carved fish and a conch shell made out of glazed terracotta. I don't think this is the whole collection, as there were postcards of other items in the shop, but perhaps those came from exhibitions.
There were 4 exhibitions: I saw 3 of them, one of Art Nouveau - attractive but underwhelming - I sort of "did" Art Nouveau in the V&A a few years ago and this display didn't really tell me anything new - except how some of the artists had been inspired by engravings of flora and fauna in natural history texts. Darwin had a prominent place - but I'm not sure we can really say On the Origin of Species was the major influence for the development of Art Nouveau - it's just a fashionable trope. Another exhibition was a quite interesting photography one - with pictures of houses in the US and in Calcutta - details such as shrines, plates of food, sofas etc. The third one (I skipped the Manga exhibition) was a display of characters in Japanese comic books etc. this was mildly amusing - especially the characters who were real kittens dressed in vaguely superhero costumes. Wonder if I can get pictures of them.
Why wasn't this trip inspiring? Don't know - I like making connections - but in the exhibitions all the connections were made for me - in the main display it was so heavily themed that one could do nothing but make the most obvious observations: doesn't that Native American mask look exactly like the face on the Modigliani? One thing I did notice was a tiny Egyptian relief carving - dating to 2,300BC - in exactly the style of all Egyptian work up to the time of the Ptolemies. Another observation was that it was rather more beautiful than a great many other things on display. It is fascinating how many cultures develop an ugly style and stick with it. I really find the "lumpiness" of most Pre-Columbian art rather horrid. Yes, I can understand its fascination but I wouldn't give it house room.
No comments:
Post a Comment