I checked out the supremely sublime Turner show at the Met on Friday night. I’d seen a bunch of Turners around over the years (Frick, Met, Yale Center for British Art) but this show was a revelation because it really puts his versatility on display. Did I mention it was SUBLIME???? A few notes…
1) The geopolitical context (Napoleonic Wars, etc.) that the currators put many of the paintings in was interesting and appreciated, but it often seemed just a bit overdone. For instance: Hannibal crossing the Alps was a theme. Napoleon had just crossed the Alps. Well done. Elsewhere: Britain as Rome, France as Carthage. Ah ha, very good. But then for some reason, I felt that that line of thinking went overboard. The info about JMWT’s vast brush strokes and actual technique was far more impressive than fishing-for-historical-context.
2) JMWT’s literary interests. He did a skectch of Tintern Abbey that I remember like it was yesterday from my circa 1995 tenth grade English textbook, where it accompanied the poem. Of course, then I had no idea who he was. JMWT was also very aware of Byron.
3) JMWT and class. Well now, that picture featuring the carpenters and the Oxford dons is quietly remarkable. Later in the evening (synchronicity!) I found myself reading John Onians on Ruskin, and he quotes Ruskin on JMWT on class and notes how he appreciated “market-womanly types of humanity.” Ruskin!
4) “Atmosphere is my style.” I love it. A true master, you can check his credentials.
2 responses so far ↓
Dr Selby Whittingham // August 31, 2008 at 12:53 pm |
The historical significance of Turner’s paintings may not have much resonance today, but did then. Turner also supported Greek Independence, as did his Russian follower, Aivazovsky. It therefore seems incredible that the Turner is scheduled to go on to Moscow next, when the West is condemning Russia’s trampling on Georgian liberty?
Douglass Montrose-Graem // August 31, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
The Met show’s huge defect: it virtually ignores Turner’s enormous graphic output, on which he spent up to half or more of his professional life.
That in the USA, the “home of democracy”, the democratic aspect of Turner is shamefully neglected is a sad commentary on the Tate’s unprofessional/biased leadership re the Turner tour in America.
AS Putin has invaded Georgia and continues to violate international law, a Turner show in Moscow would be regarded by PUTIN as an endorsement.
Has Putin bribed The Tate Trustees to stage this show? With how many millions? True, or false, that cries out for an investigation, particularly if The Tate trustees would refuse to forgo their Moscow adventure in hypocricy!