Skip to main content

Notes from the Corcoran Gallery of Art, DC

Detail of a Terry Winters painting:
Degas' 'Dance Studio': the paint looks like it as smeared and daubed on with cloth here and there. Contrasts with the sharp precise edges of the paint on the red fan lying on the floor. Shockingly realistic when exhibited, it has a classical use of subdued tones to make the flashes of colour stand out more brightly.

Daumier 'At The Print Studio' and Bellows '47 kids': both were illustrators, caricaturists, but Bellows' figures and faces are far more exaggerated and cartoonish. Daumier looks like a mainstream Impressionist by comparison.

Stuart Davis, 'Study for a Swing Landscape', 1938: the texture of paint in all the abstract shapes really catches the eye. makes it a sensual and not a mechanical exercise.

Sargent, portrait from 1883: Such a technically brilliant painter, like Manet & Velazquez combined. The overlaying of thick flourishes of white paint on top of warm grey glazes keeps the surface alive while conveying the textures of fabrics and things by the minimum number of touches.

Sketch of the Sargent ptg. from my notebook page
'Salut Tom' by Joan Mitchell: Even more splendid than high-def photos of it. Large enough to make you feel you could swim in it. The first impression of brilliant light becomes combined when you get within a few inches of it, with an appreciation of all the subtle textures: gobs of paint dried on the surface like snails, a spray of dots where a wide wet brush made a turn, bristles still embedded in the dried paint.

American painting from 1942 on is so infinitely superior to what came before it. But I wonder what all those pictures by De Kooning, Pollock, Still, Hoffman, Mitchell, Frankenthaler, et al would look like if they'd all been told they could only paint on canvasses no bigger than 18" x 24"?

 Subscribe to Praeterita in a reader

Popular posts from this blog

On my 300th blog post


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