Skip to main content

On The National Gallery of Ireland

I'm in Dublin for the first week of the decade, taking the photos for a travel article that my wife is writing. On our first full day in the city, we went looking for the appropriately campy statue to Oscar Wilde, and found ourselves right next to the National Gallery of Ireland. After a few minutes inside its marble-floored rooms, I realised how many paintings that have been familiar to me for years are actually here in Dublin. The first major sight was Caravaggio's "The Taking of Christ":



It's true, but banal, to say that Caravaggio's art is based on extreme chiaroscuro, and startling transitions from light to dark areas. The eye is immediately impressed by the way light on objects is represented: the dazzling light on the centurion's armour, the light on the folds of skin on the furrowed brows of Christ and Judas, the glints on the fingernails and in the corners of eyes. It's the eyes in particular that drew me. The pattern of looking in the painting points towards the philosophical principle, unconscious perhaps but undeniably there, that arises as a result of Caravaggio's supreme mastery of surface. The eyes of each figure are more or less on the same horizontal line, and this combines with the thrust of the armoured arm to create a terrific right-to-left motion. The eyes of the two key people in the story, Judas and Christ, are not clearly visible. Christ is looking down, his eyelids almost closed; and Judas' eyes are obscured by shadow. The effect would be very different if we could see their eyes clearly. Because we cannot, we are forced to look at the shapes made by the figures, the gestures of the arms and hands, the folds made by the draperies, to feel the full force of the story. Simply put, amidst the tumult and hectic movement in the moment at which Christ is apprehended, the two main actors are veiled and withdrawn, as if the betrayal is too awful to look at with eyes wide open.

Then there was this Vermeer:



The first thing you notice about a Vermeer is the appearance of absolute fidelity to reality, to the position of things in space and the close record of light and shadow. The more I looked, the more I started to see that the edges of things are far less sharp than they appear. Photos such as the one I've inserted here give the impression that each shape is painted with razor-sharp drawing. But it seemed to me that Vermeer stopped just short of that, possibly by feathering the edges of every shape with a blending brush. There is thus an odd effect of photographic realism when you step back, but when you go in close, there is a slight blurring at the edges. I thus started to see how this 'realistic' painting is composed of many abstract shapes, with echoes across the entire picture--for example, the floor tile, observed in proper perspective, creates a lozenge shape that is repeated in the angles of the chair to the right, and the curtain on the left. Patterns emerge in the sleeve of the woman writing, created by the motion of a brush going up and down, back and forth, in a slow, confident, hypnotic rhythm, creating the sense of a mind spellbound both by the reality of a thing, and the pleasing pattern that it makes. The same dual sense of observing and losing oneself is there in the patterns of the leaded window, and the rug that hangs over the table, and the painting on the wall behind the two figures. Again, there is a whole phenomenology here, ideas about what constitutes the essential or the contingent attributes of things--but worked out by years of looking at the world, combined with a physical exploration of the tactile possibilities of a hand moving pigment across a surface.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

On my 300th blog post

Crikey!

It's my 300th blog post. And I seem to remember that in my 200th blog post I said that I would start quoting from John Ruskin's "Praeterita", after which this blog was named. Well, better late then never, so quotation number 2 is below.

First, though, some thoughts on this blog and blogging in general. I started Praeterita at the end of last year after reading a book by an art-marketing guru called Alyson Stansfield that recommended it as a means for artists to publicise their work better. But from the start I thought it would be more interesting to talk in a discursive way about my wider interest in art, and artists, and the history of art. After a desultory beginning where I only posted once a week, my blogging habit has now grown to the point where I am posting sometimes twice a day, and more than 45 times per month (helped enormously by the Blogger feature that lets you save blog posts with a post-dated timestamp, so that you can put posts in the bank to …

My worst open studio

Most open studios are notable for nothing really happening. You sit there waiting for people to come into your studio, eat all your nibbles and guzzle the free drink, and then leave after a cursory glance at your work. Usually, the worst thing that happens is that you get stuck in a boring conversation with a dull person,

But there was one time a few years ago when I got into one of these conversations, and quite quickly the person I was talking to started to make homophobic remarks about another artist in the building. After a few minutes, I decided I'd had enough and asked him to leave. He seemed genuinely surprised that I had any objection to what he was saying, which in retrospect makes me even angrier if he thought he had a sympathetic ear.

He asked me why, and I told him I didn't like people talking that way, and I said: "This conversation ended 30 seconds ago." So he left.

So, nothing dramatic like Jackson Pollock getting drunk in a fancy New York apartment a…

Van Gogh on Degas

From a letter dated July 31, 1888:
“Why do you say Degas can’t get it up properly? Degas lives like some petty lawyer and doesn’t like women, knowing very well that if he did like them and bedded them frequently, he’d go to seed and be in no position to paint any longer. The very reason why Degas’s painting is virile and impersonal is that he has resigned himself to being nothing more than a petty lawyer with a horror of kicking over the traces. He observes human animals who are stronger than him screwing and f—ing away and he paints them so well for the very reason that he isn’t all that keen on it himself.”
Subscribe to Praeterita in a reader