And what did you see?
I'll get the ball rolling. Last Thursday went to the private view of the George Bellows exhibition at the Royal Academy in London.
Bellows is often regarded as a neglected American artist, especially when compared to his much more famous near-contemporary Edward Hopper. While it has to be said that most of his New York Docks and boxing pictures are classics, much of the work shown in (what I think is his first major UK retrospective) is sub-par, and nowhere near as good as Hopper.
The early portraits, which owe a debt to Manet, are very good, with their thick impasto; the scenes of New York on the brink of change are of similarly high quality; his charcoal portraits and scenes from urban life are often exceptional. Many of his landscapes are wonderful too.
But his later work, especially his First World War pictures, are dreadful: static and anodyne, they remind me of hack propaganda. And the late portraits and groups are awful, stuck between the 19th and 20th centuries: it's as if the dynamism so evident in his NYC and boxing paintings had been completely drained from him towards the end of his life.
There is a very, very good smaller exhibition here, but on the evidence of the work on display, Bellows is a competent second-tier painter, and no more.
So what about you, guys and gals?
Posted on: 20 March 2013 by Bruce Woodhouse
Great thread idea.
Back from Belgium last week and spent a great few hours at the Groeningemuseum in Bruges. I've been before and remember being taken aback by the early Flemish Primitives; and so it was again.
This is very much not my usual taste in art (which tends towards the modern and the minimalist if anything) but these pictures have a transcendent quality and a freshness that is quite exquisite. The characters that populate some are also deliciously human with rumpled faces, warts and beligerent expressions. The earliest pictures are also astonishingly fresh, far more so than the Renaissance collection that follows (and they also include a typically barking Hieronymous Bosch too which is always a laugh).
Like many of the best galleries the exhibition is quite small giving the chance to concentrate on a few well chosen and presented pictures.
These really are not pictures that show well on a computer screen but I love this character (detail) and you get some idea of the richness of these lovely paintings.
Posted on: 20 March 2013 by lutyens
I have 'done' two recently
Lichtenstein at the Tate.
I think there are few surprises in this exhibition and if you are not, at least, aware and have some inkling of his work you probably won't and have little need to go. While he may have worked happily through the 80's and 90's his key work was in the 60's and essential to the explosion of art and cultural ideas of that period. He clearly explored a range of different ideas post that period but generally using similar 'styles' and motifs.
Some interesting ideas at landscapes but...........not sure about the rest. None the less a very important artist and good to see a comprehensive retrospective. NOt sure it is essential viewing tho'.
Manet at the Royal Acadamy
Another themed and large exhibition. And a dissappointment I felt. A lot of sketches and half finished pictures ( or selectively finished canvases if you want a more positive form of words.) There were only a handful of his key paintings. And key paintings are always useful to give reference points in these types of ( not simple retospective), exhibitions. I went through at high speed, twice, just because of the crowds and frankly because not much made me want to stop and find out more. As always the text in each room is useful and helps set the context for the room, but many of the paintings were lesser Manet's and while in other exhibitions such as the Van Gogh at the RA about a year ago which was magnificent, these did little to help explain why he was important or how he was developing. I think this was an exhibition that should have been smaller, more intense and in the smaller Sackler gallery.
This is not to put anyone off either. You should go and I would be really interested in other comments.
atb
james
Posted on: 20 March 2013 by Gavin B
The Titanic experience / museum in Belfast, including the Pump House and dry dock.
Very interesting. The only slight disappointment was that they don't have any genuine recovered items.
Posted on: 02 June 2013 by Kevin-W
Time to get this going again.
The brilliant Bowie is exhibition at the V&A. Well worth a return visit methinks.
We went early Saturday morning - it was already very crowded but as it's a timed entry exhibition, if you go backwards you usually get more space to see everything.
If you're a Bowie fan this is an essential visit.
Posted on: 02 June 2013 by Derek Wright
Last gallery / museum was Louvre Lens in Northern France. Interesting best to view almost incomprehensible web site. Be aware the car park is about 3/4 of a mile from the museum.
Before that The Pallant House Gallery in Chichester - always worth going to.
Posted on: 02 June 2013 by Haim Ronen
http://www.flickr.com/photos/h...et-72157608249640636
MAM, Milwaukee Art Museum, which is always a treat to visit and admire Santiago Calatrava's architecture. The show we went to see, 'History of Photography', was interesting though on the light side in term of images selected to be displayed.
Posted on: 02 June 2013 by Salmon Dave
Visited the Saatchi Gallery on the Kings Road on Saturday. The contemporary Russian art ex was deeply scary....
http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/artists/russia/
Then a flying visit to the National Portrait Gallery - rather liked the Kate M portrait but could have lived without an infinity of Beckham sleeping.