JMW TURNER
J.M.W TURNER RETROSPECTIVE AT THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART, NYC
On the other hand, these shows can make a painter out to be a lot more monotonous. While the sheer talent of Joseph William Mallord Turner keeps the recent retrospective of his work at the Metropolitan Museum of Art from completely falling into this categorization, OMNP came away from this show feeling ambivalent.To be sure, Turner was a great artist-an artistic pioneer whose focus on light prefigured the Impressionists, and whose feel for evocative atmospheres and the drama of the natural elements was unsurpassed. While such qualities made him unique, however, one leaves this exhibition feeling that they also made him one-dimensional.
As Roberta Smith alluded to earlier this month , viewing one or two Turner paintings is a lot different than 150 of them at once. We are used to seeing his paintings sticking out by themselves in a museum’s collection. But when they are bunched together, it causes his work to feel formulaic. The landscapes may change, but the feeling behind each is the same. Turner’s scenes always have a surreal quality to them, where brooding clouds “(The Tenth Plague of Egypt”) and crashing waves (“Fall of the Rhine at Schaffhausen” ) are dominating characters that are awe inspiring in relation to the tiny figures of men before them. These pictures eschew Turner’s Romantic sensibilities. Like many other of his fellow painters and writers in Britain at the time, Turner cherished the bucolic qualities of the English landscape,which stood to be tarnished in the approaching age of Industrialism. Turning towards the writings of Edmund Burke, Turner sought out the sublime power of nature and its ability to evoke, as the Met quotes, the “strongest emotion which the mind is capable of feeling.”
While such artistic values may succeed in depicting compelling landscapes, they do not translate as well in other types of scenes. Take Turner’s attempt at history painting, with works like “The Battle of Trafalgar, as Seen from the Mizen Starboard Shrouds of the Victory.” The figures in this painting lack any sort of individuality or human emotion. Instead of a dramatic myth, Turner gives us a sensory filled reenactment of the battle-depicting the foggy haze of sea mist and gunfire and the tangled confusion of ships battling at such close range. This may be a realistic recreation, but for such an important moment in British history, its specificity detracts from its legend. The same could be said of “The Field of Waterloo.” Turner eerily creates the fire and brimstone that rages on in the distance, but pays little attention to the pathos of the suffering figures in the foreground.
Notwithstanding, in some instances, Turner’s lack of countenance towards living forms makes them all the more affable. Who could not be charmed by the silhouette of the barking dog in “Dawn after the Wreck” or the tiny fleck of gray resembling a sprinting rabbit in “Rain, Steam, and Speed,”? Both these paintings, however, are not included in the show. Where was “The Slave Ship,” and “The Fighting Temeraire,” by the way? The retrospective felt incomplete without them-perhaps they are just too valuable to leave their respective homes.
Turner’s paintings, while both beautiful, and ahead of their time, are still considered to be the black sheep of their time. Their unorthodox nature may have overshadowed his goal of bringing landscape painting to a level of esteem on par with the grand history painting of his idol, Nicholas Poussin. Yet this was a man who should be celebrated for not only finding a unique vision of the world, but relentlessly exploring new ways to depict it. A final painting from the show, “Sunrise with Sea Monsters” shows Turner, in the throes of his career, almost delving into full out abstraction. The blurb of some amphibious form emerging from the oceans surface is barely made out in a swirl of pink, olive, maroon, and ivory white.
On the other hand, these shows can make a painter out to be a lot more monotonous. While the sheer talent of Joseph William Mallord Turner keeps the recent retrospective of his work at the Metropolitan Museum of Art from completely falling into this categorization, OMNP came away from this show feeling ambivalent.To be sure, Turner was a great artist-an artistic pioneer whose focus on light prefigured the Impressionists, and whose feel for evocative atmospheres and the drama of the natural elements was unsurpassed. While such qualities made him unique, however, one leaves this exhibition feeling that they also made him one-dimensional.
As Roberta Smith alluded to earlier this month , viewing one or two Turner paintings is a lot different than 150 of them at once. We are used to seeing his paintings sticking out by themselves in a museum’s collection. But when they are bunched together, it causes his work to feel formulaic. The landscapes may change, but the feeling behind each is the same. Turner’s scenes always have a surreal quality to them, where brooding clouds “(The Tenth Plague of Egypt”) and crashing waves (“Fall of the Rhine at Schaffhausen” ) are dominating characters that are awe inspiring in relation to the tiny figures of men before them. These pictures eschew Turner’s Romantic sensibilities. Like many other of his fellow painters and writers in Britain at the time, Turner cherished the bucolic qualities of the English landscape,which stood to be tarnished in the approaching age of Industrialism. Turning towards the writings of Edmund Burke, Turner sought out the sublime power of nature and its ability to evoke, as the Met quotes, the “strongest emotion which the mind is capable of feeling.”
While such artistic values may succeed in depicting compelling landscapes, they do not translate as well in other types of scenes. Take Turner’s attempt at history painting, with works like “The Battle of Trafalgar, as Seen from the Mizen Starboard Shrouds of the Victory.” The figures in this painting lack any sort of individuality or human emotion. Instead of a dramatic myth, Turner gives us a sensory filled reenactment of the battle-depicting the foggy haze of sea mist and gunfire and the tangled confusion of ships battling at such close range. This may be a realistic recreation, but for such an important moment in British history, its specificity detracts from its legend. The same could be said of “The Field of Waterloo.” Turner eerily creates the fire and brimstone that rages on in the distance, but pays little attention to the pathos of the suffering figures in the foreground.
Notwithstanding, in some instances, Turner’s lack of countenance towards living forms makes them all the more affable. Who could not be charmed by the silhouette of the barking dog in “Dawn after the Wreck” or the tiny fleck of gray resembling a sprinting rabbit in “Rain, Steam, and Speed,”? Both these paintings, however, are not included in the show. Where was “The Slave Ship,” and “The Fighting Temeraire,” by the way? The retrospective felt incomplete without them-perhaps they are just too valuable to leave their respective homes.
Turner’s paintings, while both beautiful, and ahead of their time, are still considered to be the black sheep of their time. Their unorthodox nature may have overshadowed his goal of bringing landscape painting to a level of esteem on par with the grand history painting of his idol, Nicholas Poussin. Yet this was a man who should be celebrated for not only finding a unique vision of the world, but relentlessly exploring new ways to depict it. A final painting from the show, “Sunrise with Sea Monsters” shows Turner, in the throes of his career, almost delving into full out abstraction. The blurb of some amphibious form emerging from the oceans surface is barely made out in a swirl of pink, olive, maroon, and ivory white.
posted by Felix at 11:51 a. m.
0 Comments:
Publicar un comentario
<< Home