Ingatestone Hall

Sans Dieu Rien

“Sir William hath at his own great costs and charges erected and builded a new house, very fair, large and stately, made of brick and embattl’d.”
Thomas Larke, 1566

33380324_10213994863657112_5217312055391944704_nIt is not often that stately homes stay in one family. Many throughout England now belong to councils, trusts or associations and are seen as relics of the past. The Petre family, however, have retained their grade one listed manor house through fifteen generations. Ingatestone Hall, built during the reign of Henry VIII (1491-1547), maintains its Tudor appearance and is owned by the 18th Baron Petre.

Since 1992, parts of the house have been open to visitors during the summer months, including the ten acres of enclosed gardens. The south wing remains off limits and contains the living apartments of the heir of Ingatestone Hall, Dominic Petre. Either with a private tour or exploring on one’s own, guests can discover the history of the Petre family and their connection to the history of Great Britain.

 

 

 

Set slightly outside the village of Ingatestone, Essex, five miles from Chelmsford, and twenty-five from London, the Hall is easiest to travel to by car, however, the view of the building is obscured by trees. After parking in a meadow and starting to walk towards the Hall, visitors are welcomed by a red outer court building supporting a turret and one-handed clock engraved with the motto Sans Dieu Rien (without God nothing). Passing through the archway below brings you to the inner court, still referred thus despite the demolition of the west wing.

Built with red bricks, the manor house contains many features typical of Tudor architecture. Some of these are the originals and others were installed in the 20th century when attempting to convert the building back into its initial appearance, these include the many mullioned windows. Crow-stepped gables and ornate chimney pots decorate the roof, and a tall, crenellated turret containing an octagonal staircase stands to face the courtyard. It is unusual to see a private residence with crenellations because these are traditionally reserved for defensive structures, such as city walls and castles. Permission had to be granted by the king before the first owner could add this characteristic to his home.

NPG 3816,Sir William Petre,by Unknown artist

Sir William Petre (c1505-1572)

The first owner was Sir William Petre (c1505-72) who bought the estate around 1540, however, the history of the land goes back much further. In circa AD 950, King Edgar granted Barking Abbey land in Yenge-atte-Stone (the old name for Ingatestone) to build the Abbey of Our Lady & St Ethelburga. The Nunnery remained in use until 1535 when Henry VIII ordered the Dissolution of the Monasteries.

The Dissolution of the Monasteries was an anti-Catholic process that took place between 1535 and 1541. The monarch suppressed all Roman Catholic properties, taking their money and belongings as well as their buildings. This, in part, was a result of the Protestant Reformation in Europe, however, for Henry VIII, it was more likely a monetary issue.

William Petre, a lawyer from Devon, first came to Ingatestone as Thomas Cromwell’s (1485-1540) assistant. Cromwell was ordered to lead the Dissolution of the Monasteries and it was Petre’s job to create a record of each establishment’s possessions and persuade the inhabitants to peacefully surrender to the king. One of the places Petre was assigned to was the Abbey of Our Lady & St Ethelburga, a building with which he quickly fell in love.

Taking out a mortgage, which he quickly paid off, Petre bought the grange from Henry VIII for £849 12s 6d. Unhappy with parts of the building, Petre demolished it and built the house which is essentially what visitors can still see today. William Petre, knighted in 1543, lived the remainder of his life at Ingatestone Hall with his wife and children. Henry VIII appointed him Secretary of State, a position he kept throughout the reigns of four Tudor monarchs. On his death, his eldest son John (1549-1613) inherited the house, becoming the first Baron Petre.

gallery_007

Stone Hall

The tour of Ingatestone Hall begins in the Stone Hall, so called due to its flagstone flooring, which was recreated in the 20th century to replace the Great Hall lost in the demolition of the West Wing of the building. In the Georgian era, the decor had been modernised, however, Lady Rasch, the wife of the 16th Baron Petre, restored the room, which would have originally been three rooms, to the traditional Tudor appearance. Although electrical lighting has been added, the hall is quite dark due to the oak-panelled walls, giving visitors a sense of life in the 16th-century.

The Dining Room, also decorated with oak-panels, is set up as it would have looked at the beginning of a family meal. The table is set with cutlery, crockery and candlesticks, making the meal look like a grand occasion. The most interesting feature in the room, however, is the Mortlake Tapestries that adorn the walls around the table. Although they have become discoloured with time, the tapestries, which may have once belonged to James I and Charles I, are still impressive pieces of woven art.

The Old Kitchen with its wide fireplace is another interesting part of the house. This room would have been full of serving staff preparing meals but today it is no longer used as a kitchen. A cabinet holds examples of old kitchenware from past generations and the walls are filled with paintings of horses in the style of George Stubbs (1724-1806). Rich families often commissioned paintings of their prized horses, even more so than portraits of their own children.

 

 

Upstairs, the Master Bedroom has been refurbished to appear as it may have looked when the first few generations lived in the house. The Tudor oak-panelling is also seen here but it has had some additions over time, including a walk-in wardrobe. In contrast, another room on the first floor reveals the Georgian decoration the Hall wore in the 18th century. Instead of oak panels, the room is covered in pine, a much lighter colour to its predecessor.

Finally, visitors reach the Great Gallery, which is a lengthy 29 metres, containing 40 portraits of the previous Barons Petre and their families. Display cases reveal various items, including clothing, letters, and old Catholic objects that may have once been hidden in priest holes in the walls of the building. Two priest holes were found by accident by past members of the family. These can be peered into by visitors as they make their way around the house.

The Petre family were recusants that refused to accept the new Anglican church. For their safety, they kept their Roman Catholic practices hidden from the public, holding covert masses in their private chapel. The priest holes may have been used to store their Bible and so forth in order to prevent nosy visitors from discovering their secret. They also helped to shelter several priests who were being hunted by Anglican lawmen. One of these priests was St. John Payne (1532-82) who had been arrested at Ingatestone in 1577. It was thought that he returned to the Hall after being released from the Tower of London where he may have made use of one of the priest holes. Although the Petre family succeeded in concealing him within their walls, Payne was later arrested elsewhere and beheaded in 1582. The clothes he wore on the scaffold are on display in the Great Gallery, complete with blood stains.

 

 

After visitors have finished exploring the Hall, they may relax in the Summer Parlour, or the Ballroom as it was in the original plans. Here you can order teas, sandwiches and large slices of cake, freshly prepared by the kitchen staff. The room has a positive atmosphere and is a great place to regroup after a tour or a walk around the gardens.

 

 

With splendid scenery and a beautiful building, Ingatestone Hall is a popular location for weddings. Various rooms can be used for the ceremony and reception and the Summer Parlour is the perfect size to cater a meal for a large party. At other times of the year, exhibitions or plays may be put on by local artists, which always attract a large number of visitors.

Every now and then, the current Baron Petre or his son Dominic may make an appearance. Until recently, John, the 18th Baron Petre had a big role in public life. Until a recent birthday, he held the title of Lord Lieutenant of Essex and has had opportunities to meet the Queen and the previous President of the United States, Barrack Obama. In 2016, he was appointed Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order. Lord John Petre will forever be associated with a large number of local organisations, such as Brentwood Arts Council; Brentwood Shakespeare Company; Ingatestone and Fryerning Horticultural Society; Ingatestone and Fryerning Angling Club; and as the President of St John Ambulance Essex, to name but a few.

Putting aside its history, Ingatestone Hall also has several claims to fame. It has been hired numerous times by film companies for a range of productions. These include: Lovejoy (BBC TV: 1992); Lady Audley’s Secret (Warner Sisters: 1999); an advertisement for British Gas (2001); Blue Peter (BBC TV: 2002 & 2005); a music video for Snow Patrol; Bleak House (BBC TV: 2005); and Jekyll and Hyde (ITV: 2015).

Ingatestone Hall is well worth a visit for both locals and those living further afield. Historians will love seeing the Tudor building and learning about the previous members of the Petre family. Others will enjoy the gardens and tea room as part of a peaceful day out. Children are also catered for with special events throughout the summer. Details of these can be found on their website. Due to it being a private residence, access to the Hall is limited. The opening times are from noon to 5 p.m on Wednesdays, Sundays and Holiday Mondays between Easter until the end of September. Visitors are advised to check the website before arriving to make sure the Hall will be open.

ADMISSION PRICES (2018)
ADULTS £7.00
PENSIONERS £6.00
CHILDREN (5-16) £3.00
UNDER FIVES FREE
Advertisements

Portraits at the Mall

img_881020copyEvery year, hundreds of people visit the Mall Galleries in London to view a diverse and exciting programme of exhibitions. From well-established artists to amateur painters, the Galleries host an abundance of different shows. Known for being Central London’s leading gallery for contemporary art, a whole range of visual arts can be viewed and purchased annually.

Run by the Federation of British Artists, the Mall Galleries gives individual artists and societies the opportunity to showcase their work. Established in 1961, FBA is a visual arts charity that comprises several of the UK’s leading art societies, including the Royal Society of Portrait Painters, the Royal Society of British Artists and the New English Arts Club. With each of these societies hosting an annual exhibition, the Mall Galleries becomes host to an eclectic range of artworks from all types of mediums: oil paintings, watercolours, pastels, prints, sculpture and so forth.

rp300x233One of the more recent exhibitions, which opened for two weeks during May 2018, was curated by the Royal Society of Portrait Painters. Carefully selected by professionals, around 200 works by serious contemporary portrait painters of all stylistic approaches were there to be admired and appreciated, including various competition winners.

Now registered as a charity with Her Majesty The Queen as its Patron, the Royal Society of Portrait Painters was established in 1891 with painters such as Millais and Whistler as members. With the intention of promoting enjoyment and appreciation of the art of portraiture, it aims to encourage up-and-coming artists and develop new modes and perspectives of painting.

The past 500 years has seen portraiture at its most popular in Britain, beginning with the likes of Sir Joshua Reynolds, Hans Holbein and Van Dyck, the latter two famous for portraits of the monarchy. These painters have helped to illustrate English history and give us great insight into the upper classes during the Tudor, Stuart and Victorian era. In more recent years, portraits of the middle classes began to emerge followed by the working class, as contemporary artists began using their family and friends and models. Examples include paintings by Lucien Freud and David Hockney who were prominent during the 20th century.

Present day portrait painters have entered an “art for art’s sake” period where commisions for sittings are less common leaving artists to their own devices and experimentation. With so many past art movements to be influenced by, painters have far more scope to play with, rather than in the earlier years when a particular style was expected. As seen in the Royal Society of Portrait Painters’ exhibition, there is a huge range of techniques that not only portray a likeness of the sitter, express emotion and personal concerns as well.

There will come a day when these portraits of 2018 may be reflected back on in a similar vein to society’s appreciation of painters from the 16 and 1700s. Particularly in the case of well-known faces, such as Michael Noakes’ portrait of Her Majesty the Queen, some of these paintings will help to reveal what the people and lifestyle were like at the beginning of the 21st century (although, we also have photographs for that job). However, the majority of the paintings submitted to this exhibition were portraits of anonymous people, personally known by the artists, and therefore meaningless in terms of documenting history. On the other hand, they are a great way of studying different styles, techniques and talents of individual people.

Starting off the exhibition was an incredibly detailed portrait titled Sophia by the Spanish fine artist Miriam Escofet (b1967). An associate member of The Royal Society of Portrait Painters, Escofet describes herself as a contemporary figurative painter and has been painting ever since graduating from art school in 1991. Her work is inspired by classical painters, which can be seen in the smoothness of the brushstrokes that are virtually invisible in this hyper-realistic painting of a young woman. What makes the painting so remarkable, and arguably the best in the exhibition, is the attention to detail, particularly in the lace dress. It is almost as though one could reach out a hand and feel the material or stroke the hair. Sophia is a phenomenal piece of work, it is hard to believe it is a painting.

There were a few other extremely realistic portraits that took on the appearance of photographs rather than paintings. An example is Sandra Kuck’s (b1947) Yvonne in which a flawless young girl sits in front of an elaborately decorated background. In this painting, Kuck not only shows her talent for portraiture but displays her skill at working with intricate detail, delicate lighting and vibrant colours.

Although photorealistic portraits are awe-inspiring, the majority of the works included in the show were of a more impressionist nature. Neale Worley’s (b1962) small painting Ilea sits on the border between impressionism and realism. From a distance, the portrait could be mistaken for a photograph, however, up close the brush strokes are more visible. Similarly to Kuck, Worley is also extremely talented at capturing skin tone and the texture of the fabric in the background.

Some people confuse the concept of impressionism with surrealism but often these paintings still look realistic, however, with more obvious brush strokes. Although they could not be mistaken for a photograph, they provide a lifelike impression of the sitter. Alice Boggis-Rolfe‘s (b1990) highly commended Self Portrait with Brushes is produced with loose brushstrokes that concentrate more on the application of colour than the preciseness of the composition. Nonetheless, the final result is a faithful portrayal of the artist at work as seen through the reflection of a mirror.

Nneka Uzoigwe’s portrait of Fiona, on the other hand, is produced with more precise brushstrokes, yet still adopting an impressionistic approach. The model almost appears to be emerging from or fading into the dark background and looks ever so slightly blurred, resulting in an ethereal quality that most realistic paintings fail to achieve. Uzoigwe is mostly known for floral still lifes but she has managed to transfer her method of painting to portraiture to produce something as equally beautiful.

Toby Wiggins‘ Girl with a Ring may be more recognisable than other paintings in the exhibition since it was selected to be featured on the advertisements published online and in magazines. Wiggins studied at the Royal Academy Schools and is an established portrait painter and member of the Royal Society of Portrait Painters.

“With every new sitter, I try to respond afresh to the repeated challenges that portraiture offers. I hope that my work is an honest expression of the particular individual(s), a translation of what I see and what I feel”
– Toby Wiggins

Girl with a Ring (stop looking at her hands, it is a lip ring) is more than just a portrait. It is full of unexpressed emotion and tension revealed through the contrast of the background with the blue dress, which leads the eye to the tense posture of the model. Although the girl appears to be attempting to suppress her true feelings, her wary facial expression and stance suggest a notion of unease.

Whilst the favoured medium of the exhibition tended to be oil paint or acrylics this was not everyone’s preference. Produced in monochrome, some artists opted for charcoal or etching for their portraits. The latter has reduced in popularity since the advent of digital art, so it was refreshing to come across an etching hidden amongst the numerous paintings. Bernadett Timko (b1992) is a figurative painter but chose to use the method of etching for her portrait of Franke. This allowed her to expressively draw the tightly curled hair and scratchy stubble, something that would have been nigh on impossible with a paintbrush.

Anna Pinkster was awarded the Prince of Wales Prize for Portrait Drawing for her charcoal sketch of Em and Bruno. Complete with a black background, charcoal was an interesting choice for a portrait containing a black cat; he almost disappears into his surroundings and merges with the material of Em’s shirt.

Michael Travis Seymour (b1976) also chose to work with charcoal for his Study of Tatiana. Unlike Pinkster, Travis Seymour has a much more delicate approach to drawing and does not rush the process. Although it is not a finished portrait, the face and hair almost look like a black and white photograph due to the fine lines and shading.

As well as Her Majesty the Queen, there were a handful of well-known people framed on the walls of the Mall Galleries. One of these was Dame Judi Dench by the English artist Michael Noakes (b1933) who was elected as a Member of the Royal Society of Portrait Painters in 1967. Known for painting several important people, including members of the royal family, Noakes comes across as someone who takes portrait painting very seriously, however, there is something not quite right with his portrait of Judi Dench. The 83-year old actress leads a very busy life and it was often hard to find a date to sit for the royal painter. On the occasions that she was able to meet with Noakes, she was often fidgeting, resulting in the artist deliberately adding an extra appendage to Dench’s body in an expression of his frustration. “That is why I portrayed Judi with three arms, showing her in a rushed state.”

Carl Randall (b1975) is another painter who produced portraits of famous names, however, his results are a little unusual. The two examples of his work submitted to the exhibition were of the animator Nick Park (b1958) and the illustrator Raymond Briggs (b1934). Animator Nick Park and the Dinosaur Gallery, to give it its full title, shows the Wallace and Gromit creator behind a representation of the Natural History Museum. In the foreground are eight three-dimensional, cartoonish-looking dinosaurs, prancing around outside of the building. Randall’s choice for this scene was inspired by Park’s memories of visiting the museum to sketch the dinosaurs when he was a student.

This portrait is part of a series called London Portraits in which Randall asked 15 British celebrities who had contributed to British society and culture to choose a location in London that meant something to them to be used as the background of their portrait. In this instance, Park became part of the background with his chosen location in front of him, however, the clouded sky that makes up the backdrop is remarkably eye-catching.

Walking into a gallery and seeing Animator Nick Park and the Dinosaur Gallery on the opposite wall, the eyes are immediately drawn to the optical illusion effect of the white clouds. Until seen standing directly in front of the portrait, the painting appears to be three-dimensional. It is easy to be fooled into thinking the clouds are made of plastic and stuck on to the canvas.

The portrait of Raymond Briggs, famed for The Snowman (1978), is less bold and does not “pop” like its neighbouring painting. Briggs selected 65 Ashen Grove as the backdrop of his portrait, which is where he grew up as a child. It is also the setting of one of his famous graphic novels Ethel and Ernest (1998) and, therefore, holds lots of meaning for him.

sisters-813x1098

Sisters – Saied Dai

Quite a few of the portraits at the Mall Galleries had won or been selected for various awards. One of these prizes included the RP award presented by the Royal Society of Portrait Painters. This year, 2018, judges were looking for painters who had produced portraits that incorporated the theme “friends”. The £2000 prize was awarded to Saied Dai (b1958) whose portrait, Sisters, contained the interesting and engaging aspects the judges were looking for.

Dai was elected to the Society in 2004 and has since won several awards, with the RP being the most recent.

Seeing all the portraits together, it is clear that no artist has the exact same style as another. Whether photorealistic or impressionistic, everyone approaches the canvas differently. Naturally, there are similar styles, however, there were a couple that stood out from the others. These were not necessarily the best of the bunch but they were very different in terms of technique.

Melissa Scott-Miller, a middle-aged English artist, had two paintings in the exhibition. Both of these featured a figure named Adam, her son, who regularly appears in her compositions. Adam and Marsell, his friend since nursery school stood out for its cartoon-ish appearance, vibrant colours and detailed setting. The artist did not only focus on the human subjects, she painstakingly included everything in the room around them, from the apples on the table to the crucifix on the wall. She also added a picturesque view from the windows situated behind the two boys. Although this style may not be what people expect when thinking about portraits, it is still pleasing to look at and is refreshing to come across after so many generic portrait paintings.

David Graham, who likes to work in oils without any preparatory sketches, produced the portrait Coptic Priest, Jericho. This initially stood out for its energetic colours and brushstrokes, however, it also attracted attention for being one of the few paintings to represent a different culture.

“I relish working with artists who help me view the world from a different perspective, often challenging my own views in the process.”
Aliona Adrianova

Alongside the main exhibition was a smaller display of photographs by Aliona Adrianova who photographed many of the portrait artists in their studios. This is part of the Mall Galleries major project “In the Studio” which aims to encourage new artists by revealing the ways different artists work and to learn about the creating process. With her photographs, Adrianova aimed to capture the artists in their creative settings as well as reveal their relationship between life and art.

This was a perfect addition to the portrait exhibition, providing the opportunity to discover the artists behind the artwork and appreciate the time and energy focused on the creative process rather than only viewing the finished product. It is easy to forget the challenges and difficulties painters face in order to create the perfect outcome. These photographs reveal the artists as human beings rather than portrait producing machines.

Although this particular exhibition closed on 25th May, there will be future opportunities to view portraits by members of the Royal Society of Portrait Painters. The Society uses the Mall Galleries for their annual exhibition, therefore, keep an eye on the gallery’s diary for 2019 so that you do not miss out next year.

The Mall Galleries next exhibition is the New English Art Club Annual Exhibition 2018, which runs from 15th June until 23rd June. Admission is £4 (£3 concessions), however, National Art Pass holders receive 50% off. All exhibitions are free for Friends of Mall Galleries and under 18s.

Picasso, 1932

LOVE, FAME, TRAGEDY

The year is 1932, a leap year. The United States and the United Kingdom are suffering from the Great Depression. Europe is in the grip of economic depression and mass unemployment. National Socialism is on the rise in Germany and political developments in France are adding to the growing tension. Picasso is 50 years old and preparing for his first major retrospective to be held in June at the Galeries Georges Petit in Paris. This year could either make him or break him.

Dubbed his “year of wonders”, the Tate Modern has chosen to examine the life and works of Pablo Picasso (1881-1973) during 1932. Married to the Russian ballerina Olga Khokhlova, although having an affair for the much younger, 22-year-old Marie-Thérèse Walter, Picasso was living the life of a well-to-do bourgeoisie in France, wearing tailored suits and owning a personal chauffeur-driven car. However, political and economic problems throughout the world remained persistently in the background, a constant premonition of tragedies to befall both the artist and the rest of the world.

“The work that one does is a way of keeping a diary.”
Pablo Picasso

dp112728

Pablo Picasso, Man Ray, 1932

Now considered the Father of Modern Art, Picasso came from more humble origins. Born Pablo Ruiz Picasso on 25th October 1881 in Malaga, Spain, he developed his love of art from his father who taught at the Escuela Provincial de Bellas Artes. A young prodigy, Picasso purchased his own studio in Barcelona at the age of 16, however, he spent the majority of his time there in poverty.

Picasso’s move to Paris at the turn of the century was a blessing for both his artwork and his financial situation. His collaboration with the French painter Georges Braque (1882-1963) led to their invention of Cubism, a revolutionary new artistic approach. At the same time, Picasso met Olga Khokhlova (1891-1955) who he married in 1918, and celebrated the birth of their son, Paulo (1921-75), three years later.

As Picasso’s wealth and reputation excelled, his family life suffered. By 1932, his marriage was under considerable strain, not helped by his clandestine affair with Marie-Thérèse Walter (1909-77). Despite the situation with his personal relationships, Picasso was determined to compete creatively with his contemporaries, working hard to facilitate his own retrospective.

“I paint objects as I think them, not as I see them.”
Pablo Picasso

pablo-picasso-woman-dagger-custom-print-pabpic1806

Pablo Picasso: Woman with Dagger

The EY Exhibition: Picasso 1932 opens with one of Picasso’s final paintings of 1931. Woman with Dagger is an example of the style Picasso was known for at this period of time. The Surrealist technique reduces the image to a series of lines and colours, morphing into strange shapes. This painting shows a woman stabbing her sexual rival to death, however, the bodies are so distorted, it is difficult to make out who is who.

Being the first painting of the exhibition, Woman with Dagger gives an inaccurate precedent of the works to come. As visitors will note as they walk through the following rooms, Picasso focused heavily on portraits, particularly of women, often seated in an armchair. Judging from the date and frequency of these paintings, the sitter is likely to be Picasso’s lover, Marie-Thérèse, however, the artist admitted himself that he rarely painted from life, preferring to use his imagination or memories of dreams.

 

Supposedly, the armchair in Picasso’s paintings symbolises death. Whilst the sitter is young, painted with bright, vibrant colours, the muted, darker background and chair represent the constraints of life. Often, the model and chair amalgamate, suggesting that the woman is tied to the chair, tied to fate, tied to inevitable death.

A typical feature in Picasso’s portraits is the dual profile of the face showing half from the side and half face on. Although many art critics have their own theories, commentators at the Tate have suggested this evokes a form of sexual tension. The face is half woman, the way she sees herself, and half male, or the way a lover or sexual predator may view her. Glancing at a Picasso, it is easy to miss these sexual references, however, those who opt for an audio guide at the beginning of the exhibition, soon get all the details pointed out to them.

Despite always working in a surrealist-like manner by distorting the female body, Picasso occasionally experimented with the way he treated the painting. In Woman in a Red Armchair, Picasso converts his flat, colourful shapes into three-dimensional abstract forms, comparable to a sculpture. As well as painting, Picasso turned his hand to sculpting, however, if this painting were to be produced in clay, cement or such like, it would immediately fall apart.

Prior to 1932, Picasso experimented with unorthodox methods of sculpting whilst at his 18th-century château in Normandy. During this time he produced a number of busts of a woman – again, likely to be Marie-Thérèse – in a similar fashion to his painted versions. The bulging, distended shape of the face has been replicated in cement, creating a dual profile that changes its overall appearance depending on what angle it is viewed from. Seen from the side, the bust looks like a typical face (despite the oversized nose), however, from the front, the facial features are terribly out of proportion. A series of photographs of a selection of Picasso’s sculptures are on display taken by the French-Hungarian photographer Brassaï (1899-1984).

 

Throughout the first half of 1932, Picasso continued to focus on his portraits of women, often depicting them in the nude. The surreal, abstract quality of his work prevents the paintings from becoming overly provocative, just as the original reclining nudes of the Renaissance-era were not unduly sexualised. By taking a traditional subject and reproducing it in a contemporary style, Picasso was endeavouring to prove that figurative painting could be modern.

Midway through the exhibition, a room is devoted to Picasso’s retrospective held at the Galerie Georges Petit. Apart from a few exceptions, it was rare for living artists to have retrospectives. They tended to be a summary of the life of the artist, therefore, Picasso included a range of his works from different times of his life. In order to obscure his artistic development, Picasso did not hang works in a chronological order, interspersing recent paintings with those produced many years before. Nonetheless, critics could group some together due to the regular appearance of Marie-Thérèse Walter and portraits of his young son were easily dated to when he was a child.

 

The paintings of Picasso’s family: Olga, Paulo and himself, may surprise many viewers on account of their “normality”. Before Picasso developed Cubism and dabbled with Surrealism, he produced many realistic paintings. Although the portraits do not look finished, they show the broad talent of Picasso in terms of painting. Being able to produce realistic likenesses but choosing not to says a lot about what Picasso wanted to achieve through his artwork. He wanted his work to be looked at and thought about, concealing subliminal messages within the twists and turns of the abstract body parts.

“I feel like I am witnessing a retrospective vision of myself ten years after my death.”
Pable Picasso

Despite the lengths Picasso went to facilitate his own retrospective, declining offers of help from prestigious organisations such as The Museum of Modern Art in New York, Picasso refused to attend the actual show – allegedly, he went to the cinema instead! Nevertheless, he achieved what he set out to do and was satisfied, unlike the gallery, which due to economic and political turmoil, closed its doors for good the following year.

 

Once Picasso’s exhibition was out of the way, the artist felt less pressure to produce masterpieces. His canvases got smaller and the treatment of his paintbrushes more fluid and less careful. One example is Nude Woman in a Red Armchair painted in July 1932, where the model – Marie-Thérèse Walter – is a soft, rotund figure, without the harsh outlines of older paintings. The blues and purples give the woman a dream-like quality, suggesting Picasso had strong feelings of love towards her, which stands in stark contrast to the dark background tones.

Throughout 1932, Picasso also produced a number of charcoal drawings. Although they look like unfinished studies, they are intended to be finished works in their own right. The subject matter, for instance, a sleeping woman, is typical of Picasso, however, he concentrated on line-drawing rather than colour.

These charcoal drawings on canvas, despite being finished pieces, are not dissimilar to what can be found in Picasso’s sketchbooks. Picasso rarely created preparatory studies, however, he liked to practice his drawing skills by making a rapid succession of sketches. These give some indication of the starting points of a painting, how the shapes were built up to resemble people and other elements. For actual artworks, Picasso would draw onto the canvas before filling in the resulting shapes with colour.

 

With the summer over, Picasso’s subject matter changed drastically. Motivated by classical themes, religious and secular, he began to paint different scenes, particularly focusing on the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Picasso produced a large number of black and white studies, experimenting with shapes, both two- and three-dimensional, and line work to create a representation of Christ on the Cross. He was particularly inspired by the Isenheim Altarpiece produced in c1521 by Matthias Grünewald. This influence is evident in Picasso’s versions, the figures being situated in the same places, despite the abstract nature of the studies.

picasso-butterfly

Composition with Butterfly

During these experimental months, Picasso also experimented with forms of collages. These involved the use of found objects, both natural and manmade, which were layered together to create a picture. Composition with Butterfly contains a dried leaf, the remains of a real butterfly, and string, manipulated to produce the shape of a human being.

71f9887afb982d82acc18b6e4ac15806

The Rescue

 

As 1932 drew to a close, Picasso’s subject matter got significantly darker. The theme of being rescued from death-by-drowning became Picasso’s focus. The Rescue, the final painting of the year, shows a woman being saved either by another woman or by a bird. The meaning is not entirely clear, which leaves viewers guessing and coming up with their own theories.

The colours are not as bright as works from the beginning of the year and the paint is applied in a rushed, distressed manner, which may suggest more about the artist’s frame of mind rather than the intention of the painting. From September onwards, Picasso rapidly changed styles and subject matter, giving the impression he was restless and possibly suffering from some kind of anguish.

As the strapline for the exhibition states, Picasso’s year consisted of three major themes: love, fame and tragedy. The first half of the year, Picasso was enjoying his clandestine affair with Marie-Thérèse Walter, which led on to his retrospective exhibition. Achieving fame and recognition, Picasso was at the height of his career, successful and wealthy. Unfortunately, the final quarter of 1932 found Picasso in a different state of mind, although it is impossible without knowing the man to pinpoint the exact reason for this. It did, however, present a forbidding premonition of events to come.

By 1932, Picasso’s marriage to Olga was already under strain, however, the illegitimate birth of his daughter Maya with Marie-Thérèse ended things for good. Olga moved to the south of France, taking son Paulo with her; an event that Picasso described as the worst period of his life.

At the same time, the world was not fairing any better. In January 1933, Hitler became German Chancellor, Italy was under fascist dictatorship and Picasso’s home country Spain was submerged in a civil war. Six years later, the entire world was at war and Picasso’s successful year, his “year of wonders”, was a distant memory.

Picasso 1932 is an exhibition suitable for all. Although the subject matter of many paintings may not seem appropriate for youngsters, the abstract forms hide the sexual meanings from innocent minds. The exhibition is popular with school parties who come to look at the shapes and colours of Picasso’s works, whereas adult visitors can study the paintings in more detail with the aid of an optional audioguide (£4.50) and a pocket-sized booklet.

The EY Exhibition: Picasso 1932 organised by Tate Modern in collaboration with Musée national Picasso-Paris costs £22 entry per person or free for those in possession of a membership card. Under 18s can visit for £5 and younger children under the age of 12 may enter for free. This exhibition will remain open to the public until 9th September 2018. 

Victorian Giants

The Birth of Art Photography

The National Portrait Gallery’s latest major exhibition offers something different to the usual portraits visitors expect to see. The concept of “art” is difficult to define and everyone has their own opinion as to what falls into that category. Victorian Giants introduces the idea of art photography by looking back at the four most celebrated figures who changed attitudes and artistic approaches in relation to photography, art and portraiture, which has influenced artists ever since.

Endorsed by HRH the Duchess of Cambridge, a patron of the gallery and an aspiring amateur photographer, this exhibition contains a hundred or so images taken during the latter half of the 19th century when a new developing technique was underway. Gone were the days of unwieldy Daguerreotype processes, replaced by wet-plate collodion, allowing photographers to take faster, sharper and more versatile shots.

hb_41-21-15

Moutain Nymph, Sweet Liberty (Mrs Keene) by Cameron (1866)

A single photograph stands alone at the entrance to the exhibition, enticing visitors in with a suggestion of the portraits to come. Although not much is known about the sitter, Mountain Nymph, Sweet Liberty (1866) reveals the emotional and powerful charge of Julia Margaret Cameron’s (one of the four photographers) style of portraiture.

As the exhibition reveals, the four photographers were often inspired by various literature and attempted to capture fictional scenes or characters in their work. In this instance, the title of the photograph was taken directly from a John Milton poem, L’Allegro (1645). “Come, and trip it as ye go / On the light fantastick toe, / And in thy right hand lead with thee, / The Mountain Nymph, sweet Liberty.”

 

Of the four photographers, only one was a professional. Oscar Gustaf Rejlander (1813-75) was a Swedish émigré who came to England and set up a photographic studio in Wolverhampton in 1856. He later moved to London in 1863 where he learnt the new process of developing photographs, wet-plate collodion. This involved pouring collodion onto a glass plate and exposing it to light, via a camera, to capture the desired image.

Rejlander was known for his expressive portraits, often experimenting in order to perfect his photographs. He became an expert at photomontage in which two or more negatives were combined together to create a completely new image. By this method, people could be added into or removed from photographs as necessary or two very different scenes merged to form an impossible landscape.

The National Portrait Gallery has recently acquired a photo-album of previously unseen portraits, many of which are included in this exhibition. The head of photographs, Dr Phillip Prodger told Art Fund, “The Rejlander album becomes one of the jewels in the crown of our already impressive collection of 19th-century photographs.” It changed the way Victorian photography was perceived, particularly in relation to the extent of experimentation with a comparatively new medium.

Unlike the stiff, wooden portraits associated with the Victorian era, Rejlander’s photographs were life-like and natural. He captured sitters in natural, sensitive poses, such as staring into space deep in thought – a fleeting, almost private moment. It was this evanescent style that inspired the remaining three photographers that make up the Victorian Giants: Julia Margaret Cameron, Clementina Hawarden, and Lewis Carroll.

 

Lewis Carroll is by far the most famous of the group due to his popular children’s book Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (1865). Although often working under his pseudonym, the Rev. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (1832-98) was a lecturer in mathematics at Christ Church, Oxford University and picked up photography as a hobby in approximately 1856. Preferring to work outdoors, many of his portraits are situated in gardens where natural elements frame the model or sitters.

Carroll specialised in pictures of children, which make up half of all his known photographs. Understanding the complexities of working with youngsters, Carroll ensured a parent or governess was always present at the photoshoot. To entertain the children, he often initiated a game of dress up in which they would pretend to be heroes from works of fiction. An example is Captive Princess where one of his favourite models Alexandra “Xie” Kitchin (1864-1925), a daughter of a work colleague, poses as the princess, complete with crown, from the Golden Legend, awaiting rescue from the heroic St George.

Being a mathematician, Carroll was interested in the preciseness of angles and lighting, lining up additional light sources to achieve a particular size and direction of the shadow. It is clear from the photographs in this exhibition that Carroll put a lot of thought into his portraits in order to produce the best possible outcome.

 

Refreshingly, particularly for the era, the other two photographers are female. Julia Margaret Cameron (1815-79), originally from Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) took up photography during her 40s on the Isle of Wight after receiving a camera from her daughter in 1863. As seen in the first photograph of the exhibition, Cameron was particularly interested in Arthurian, legendary or heroic themes and other allegorical subjects.

Cameron usually used family members, friends and the local villagers as her models, however, she also took photographs of well-known people. Her portraits have been described as Rembrandt-like due to the dark, natural backgrounds and the depthless focus on the sitter’s face. Examples of this technique are the portraits of Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881), a distinguished historian, and the astronomer J.F.W. Herschel (1792-1871). Both men have an ethereal appearance, their hair and facial features emerging from the darkness.

 

Last but not least, the fourth photographer is Clementina Maude, Viscountess Hawarden (1822-65) who had a short but prolific stint as a photographer. Picking up the camera just under a decade before she died at 42 from pneumonia, Hawarden produced around 800 photographs, the majority involving her eight children.

Unlike the others, Hawarden photographed full-length figures more often than head and shoulder portraits, creating emotional scenes. Rather than focusing on the faces of her models, Hawarden thought carefully about the overall composition, draping fabrics to create a background, or employing props such as furniture.

A theme that initially tied the photographers together is childhood innocence. Victorians viewed children as pure souls who had not yet been affected by the corrupt realities of life. Their presence in artworks portrays the raw, unsullied youth that eventually gets lost as they approach adulthood, which makes the viewer want to care for and protect them from the rest of the world.

Photographing children was not an easy feat, therefore, these images display the skill and patience each of the four photographers possessed. Although children are still not easy models to work with today due to their inclination to fidget, capturing a child’s portrait in the late 1800s was much more difficult. Early cameras had long exposure times, requiring the sitter to remain completely still for at least 30 seconds. The slightest movement could ruin the picture.

Lewis Carroll had plenty of opportunities to photograph children due to his close friendship with the Liddell family. Henry Liddell (1811-98) was the dean of Christ Church, Oxford, where Carroll was employed and was a great supporter of his photographic experimentation. The Liddell family consisted of four children, the fourth being Alice (1852-1934) who inspired Carroll to write Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and its sequel, Through the Looking Glass (1871).

Although Alice Liddell was a favourite of Carroll, only twelve solo photographs exist, which is a mere handful compared with Xie Kitchin of whom he produced 45 portraits. Carroll also produced several photographs of Alice’s sister Ina and several with more than one Liddell child present. It is unknown why Carroll eventually stopped spending time with the family and only one photograph of Alice is thought to exist from the period after the publication of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.

Carroll was not the only photographer to use Alice as a model, Julia Margaret Cameron made several portraits a few years later. The example displayed at the National Portrait Gallery is a profile shot of the 21-year-old Alice, which shows the physical changes from a cropped-haired little girl to a young adult with long, flowing locks. This photograph was titled Aletheia (1872), which is Greek for true or faithful.

Although the four photographers never collaborated as a group, they often photographed the same sitters, including a few famous faces. Rejlander, Cameron and Carroll produced photographs of the Poet Laureate Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1809-92) and his sons Hallam and Lionel. The Tennyson family lived near Cameron on the Isle of Wight allowing for plenty of photographic opportunities. Rejlander, when tutoring Cameron, took the opportunity to visit the family, and Carroll came across them whilst on holiday in the Lake District.

Cameron produced the greater amount of photographs of Tennyson and experimented with style, pose and light. The poet was impressed with her skills and used one profile shot, titled The Dirty Monk (1865) as the frontispiece for a publication of his poems, Idylls of the King (1885).

Rejlander and Cameron were also responsible for taking photographs of Charles Darwin. Once again, the connection between Cameron and Darwin was made whilst on the Isle of Wight, however, Darwin preferred the style of Rejlander. Darwin often used photographs for research purposes when writing his books, particularly after discovering the way the camera could capture emotions and expressions. These were a great visual aid for his writing, and Darwin also hired Rejlander to contribute images to illustrate The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872).

“I am now rich in photographs, for I have found in London Rejlander, who for years has had a passion for photographing all sorts of chance expressions, exhibited on various occassions … instantaneously.” – Darwin, 1871

Portraits of family, friends and famous people allowed the photographers to experiment with the camera, location, light and so forth, however, they took things a step further by controlling the scene they were photographing. It is at this moment the argument that photography is art becomes strongest. In a similar way to painters, photographers have to think about composition, tones and shades and the message behind the overall image.

Occasionally, the four artists dressed their sitters as characters from literature or mythology, for example, Xie Kitchin as the Captive Princess and Tennyson as The Dirty Monk. In other photographs, models were positioned carefully to depict a particular scene, often replicating a well-known painting. A small number of the images displayed as part of Victorian Giants have been based on existing artworks. Some are loosely inspired by them, whereas, others closely resemble the exact portrait.

An example of a photograph based on a painting is Non Angeli sed Angli (1857) taken by Rejlander. It is a pastiche of Raphael’s cherubs in the Sistine Madonna. The two children pose in the exact same position, head on their hands, looking both innocent and mischievous at the same time.

The reason for making pastiches or reinterpretations of historic paintings was to prove to those who considered photography a tool rather than a visual art that photographs could do anything painting could do. Although they could not recreate brushstrokes, the composition, emotion and tone of the image could be produced equally as well with a camera as with a paint brush.

Carroll’s pastiche of Rembrandt’s Andromeda (1630) shows the actress Elizabeth “Kate” Terry chained to the rocks awaiting rescue from the sea monster by her future husband and hero Perseus. In this instance, the photograph is only loosely based on the painting, the position of the model, clothing and backdrop being completely different. Rejlander’s The Virgin in Prayer (1857), however, is a much closer representation of Sassoferrato’s painting of the same name. Rejlander has restaged the painting as closely as possible and, although the camera could not yet capture colour, the photograph is a very close approximation.

Rejlander’s most impressive reinterpretation of an artwork is his partial pastiche of  Guido Reni’s Salome with the Head of St John the Baptist (1638-9). Focusing only on the head on a charger, Rejlander produced a powerful likeness of the Baroque painting. As recorded in the new testament, Salome requested and received the head of St John on a platter. Missing from the photograph is Salome holding her prize, however, Rejlander’s biographer believed he intended to use this image as the centrepiece of a larger picture made up of a variety of photographic elements. Unfortunately, Rejlander never got the opportunity to complete this but there are a couple of examples at the National Portrait Gallery of Rejlander’s combination photographs, including one made up of at least 32 separate negatives.

Victorian Giants is both a demonstration of photography as a visual art and a celebration of the development of the camera. Included in the exhibition is a four-minute film demonstrating the nineteenth-century technique of printing photographs using wet-collodion glass-plate negatives and albumen paper.

Although it is still a matter of opinion, the National Portrait Gallery strongly expresses the view that photography belongs under the category of visual art. None of the photographs exhibited is simply a resource for other outcomes and can exist and be displayed in their own right. Some, particularly the innocent photographs of children, are extremely beautiful and full of emotion. They look equally as good framed on a wall as a hand-painted version would.

Some pictures visitors may not care for as much, but it is interesting to see the innovative methods these four photographers experimented with during a time when new technology was only just developing. Compared with what the camera can do today, these photographs feel much more precious than any modern photographer’s work.

Closing on 20th May 2018, Victorian Giants is open daily from 10 am until 6 pm. Tickets cost £10 or £8.50 for visitors over the age of 60. Members and patrons may visit the exhibition for free and National Art Pass Holders receive a 50% discount.

Modigliani

Amedeo Clemente Modigliani (1884-1920) was an Italian painter, sculptor and draughtsman who spent the majority of his working career in Paris. Almost a century after his death, the Tate Modern in London is holding the biggest display of Modigliani’s work in the UK to date, looking back at the artist’s productive, albeit brief, life. With over 100 artworks produced in Modigliani’s distinctive style, this exhibition contains some of the professed most memorable artworks of the 20th century.

“The life of Modigliani, wandering artist, so often resembles a legend, it is difficult to determine fact from fiction.”

-Arthur Pfannstiel, 1929

modigliani-jeane-hebuterne_2

Photo: Modigliani

Modigliani died at the age of 35 after a fourteen-year career as an artist. Due to his early demise and his rumoured lifestyle, there has been a lot of incorrect speculation about his character. He was deemed as socially unconventional and earned a reputation as the archetypal romantic painter, starving in a cramped living space, whilst falling victim to alcohol and drugs. Within this exhibition, the Tate Modern attempts to biographically outline his life alongside his intense and controversial artwork.

Born into a Sephardic Jewish family in Livorno, Italy, Modigliani was a rather sickly child, suffering from a handful of illnesses, including Tuberculosis. His mother, at risk of spoiling her son, encouraged his passion for art, which led to him receiving a years education at Micheli’s Art School in 1898, run by the local artist Guglielmo Micheli (1866-1926). This was Modigliani’s first form of artistic instruction, which, naturally given the school’s location, focused on the study of techniques and themes of Italian Renaissance art. Although Modigliani would quickly develop his own style, evidence of his former training can be seen in his paintings, for example, the linear grace of his work resembles that of Botticelli (1445-1510), whereas, his focus on reclining nudes may have stemmed from Titian (1488-1576), who was one of the first artists to produce paintings of this nature.

Modigliani’s personal style began developing almost simultaneously with his move to Paris in 1906. Penniless, Modigliani settled in a commune in Montmartre, where he absorbed ideas from other artists in the area. He was particularly influenced by works he saw by the late Cézanne, adopting the simplicity of loose brushstrokes and method of colour handling. Modigliani is a significant example of the way exposure to new people and places affect artists.

Evidence of Modigliani’s impoverished lifestyle can be seen at the beginning of the exhibition. On more than one occasion, he used both sides of the canvas for different paintings, implying that he did not have enough money to afford new canvases. An example is The Cellist (1909), which contains Portrait of Constantin Brancusi (1909) on its reverse. In other works, ghostly faces can be seen through the bright paint as a result of Modigliani reusing old canvases.

 

Between 1911 and 1913, Modigliani put painting aside in favour of sculpture. At least two dozen were produced within this time period, several of  whichthe Tate Modern has on display. At this time in France, European artists were drawn to museums containing a wide range of historic art and antiquities, particularly from ancient civilisations in Africa. The Egyptian style was a particular favourite of Modigliani, which he replicated in his own carved heads by mimicking the clean lines and elongated facial features.

 

It is thought that Modigliani stole blocks of limestone from building sites to use for his sculptures. It was a far more expensive pursuit than painting, which may be one reason why he abandoned the project. Another reason may have been the outbreak of World War One, which would have restricted his access to materials, but, the most likely explanation for returning to painting was the effect the dust from the carved limestone was having on his weakened lungs. However, these few years spent sculpting brought a new dimension to his artwork.

The distinctive style of portraiture that Modigliani has become recognised for encompasses many of the elements that featured in his sculptures. Rather than painting the sitter as he saw him or her, Modigliani altered their appearances with swan-like necks and almond-shaped eyes. He often left the eyes blank with no discernible iris or pupil. Although not intentional, this makes the portraits look unnerving, like creatures out of a Doctor Who episode.

 

In 1916, Modigliani became friends with the art dealer Léopold Zborowski (1889-1932) and his wife Anna (1885-1978) – both of their portraits are part of this exhibition. Zborowski encouraged Modigliani to go down a new route: painting the female nude. Painting the naked body was nothing new in the art world, however, the way in which Modigliani approached it caused some controversy amongst art patrons.

The models who posed for these paintings dominated the canvas, often making direct eye-contact with the viewer. This indicates the changes occurring in the lives of women at the beginning of the 20th century. Women were more independent and had more say about their bodies. To further emphasise the point, Modigliani went against tradition and included pubic hair in his compositions, showing the true female form and not the idealised male preference. Unfortunately, these paintings were censored by a police commissioner on the grounds of indecency. Twelve of these nudes have been located and loaned to the Tate Modern.

As the exhibition nears its end, visitors see some of the works produced within Modigliani’s final years. As well as this, the exhibition narrative takes a more personal tone, revealing the more private life of the painter. Modigliani travelled to Nice in 1918 to avoid the end of the war and to alleviate his worsening health problems. With him came his pregnant partner, Jeanne Hébuterne (1898-1920) who bore him a daughter of the same name (1918-84). Jeanne became the principal subject of his artwork, however, whilst in the French Riviera, he painted local children and friends, opting for warm Mediterranean colours. Arguably, these are some of his strongest works.

 

The quality of Modigliani’s paintings, however, are a stark contrast to the direction his life was taking. He never made much money from painting, and anything he did earn fueled his growing addiction to drugs and alcohol. Although he continued to paint, his health was deteriorating rapidly and frequently suffered alcohol-induced blackouts. None of this is evident in Modigliani’s final self-portrait. Instead, he looks like a professional, confident painter, well-dressed with paint palette in hand. His dapper appearance initially made him seem reserved and asocial at the beginning of his career, however, his reputation changed rapidly, resulting in the rakish vagabond he ended his life as.

Destroyed by his own self-indulgence, Amedeo Modigliani died on 24th January 1920 in the Hôpital de la Charité where he spent his final days suffering from tubercular meningitis. His fiancee, who was expecting his second child, took her own life the day after his funeral, jumping out of a fifth-story window.

Art historians suggest that if Modigliani had not neglected his health, he could have lived to produce great masterpieces. Modigliani kept his illness secret claiming the symptoms were a result of his drunkenness. At that time in Paris, drunkards were tolerated but disease carriers were not.

 

When Modigliani died, he was well-known amidst the artist communities of Montmartre and Montparnasse, however, he was still unheard of throughout the rest of the world. His posthumous fame began two years later after his work featured in an exhibition at the Galerie Bernheim-Jeune in Paris. This was shortly followed by the publication of a biography by André Salmon (1881-1969) titled Modigliani, sa vie et son œuvre, which introduced Modigliani to people further afield.

Modigliani has been labelled an original artist of his time who modernised figurative painting, however, it is difficult to say how good a painter he was. In comparison to the traditional form of painting, Modigliani’s work is rather poor. On the other hand, modern artists and critics were beginning to develop a taste for unconventional ideas.

Some may say Modigliani’s loose brush strokes are expressive, whereas other people may declare they look rushed. One of his sitters noted that “the portrait was finished after a few hours without him stopping for even a minute.” Others recall that he was always drawing, sometimes ten sketches in one evening. It was almost as if he was addicted to painting in the same way he was addicted to alcohol.

The Tate Modern removes the focus from each individual painting, preferring to reflect on the styles and techniques used during various periods of Modigliani’s life. Regardless of visitors’ artistic preferences, there is something interesting in learning about the artist, his influences, and what led him to paint in this manner.

To delve deeper into the artist’s past, the Tate Modern offers a virtual reality experience, for those willing to queue for half an hour, which takes individuals on a tour of Modigliani’s final studio in Paris. Another option is an audio guide which provides detailed information about specific artworks around the exhibition. The latter, however, is not included in the price of the entry fee.

At £17.70, the exhibition is rather pricey and therefore may not be worth visiting if Modigliani’s artwork is not a favourite style. For members, however, entry is free therefore nothing is lost by viewing the exhibition, and, who knows, it may be more interesting than expected. It is certainly intriguing to find out about an artist’s background, and Modigliani’s life is a heartbreaking story.

Modigliani will remain open until 2nd April 2018. Tickets can be purchased online or on arrival at the gallery. Under twelves go free with a paying adult.

Charles II: Art & Power

The first half of the 1600s were a turbulent time for the English with civil war, the beheading of a king, over a decade of Cromwellian rule, and, finally, the restoration of the Stuart Monarchy. The Royal Collection Trust has foraged through their huge hoard of paintings to put together an exhibition to illustrate the restoration of the monarchy and the rule of Charles II (1630-85). Charles II: Art & Power, held at The Queen’s Gallery, Buckingham Palace, celebrates the resurgence of the arts in England, reinforced by Charles II’s position as king. The colourful court life was a stark comparison to the dreariness of the Republic with a rise in paintings and rich materials, and the reproduction of regalia.

678574-1491571682

Charger 1680 – 1700 Faience

The exhibition starts off with a look at the final moments of Charles I’s life (1600-49) before he was committed for treason and beheaded in January 1649 outside the Banqueting Hall in Whitechapel. The Commonwealth which followed lasted a little more than a decade with the puritan Parliamentarian general, Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658) in charge. The remaining Stuarts were forced into exile, resulting in the story of the oak tree, which was where part of Charles II’s mythology, arose from. After the royalists lost the battle, the son of Charles I spent a day hiding in a great oak tree at Boscobel House in Shropshire. Commemorative wares, such as the dish on display, were sold in honour of his bravery after the restoration of the monarchy.

Charles II’s coronation took place on 23rd April 1661 and was the most extravagant since Elizabeth I’s the century before. During the Commonwealth, most of the ceremonial items needed for the inauguration had been sold or destroyed, therefore the Jewel House needed to be replenished and royal regalia remade. A number of these items are on display in the gallery and a few are still used today in royal ceremonies. A particularly noteworthy piece of regalia is the Collar and Badge of the Order of the Garter designed by Sir Robert Vyner (1631-88) specifically for Charles II’s coronation. It is made from gold and set with 20 large and 100 small diamonds.

 

 

Charles II’s reign was not the only change affecting England in the mid-1600s, the restoration of the monarchy occurred simultaneously with the development of print production. As a result, Charles II was the first king to include prints in his growing art collection. Artists also converted portraits of the monarch into printed versions, which, although he never owned himself, are featured in the gallery.

Two prints of portraits by Sir Peter Lely (1618-80) show the difference between two printmaking techniques. The first is an etching produced by Peter Vandrebanc (1649-97). The majority of early prints used this method in which a painting was carefully copied and etched onto a metal plate and covered with ink in order to transfer the drawing onto paper. The second, similar portrait was produced by Abraham Blooteling (1640-90) by a process called mezzotint (“half-tone”). Unlike its forerunning techniques, mezzotint avoided the line marks that cross-hatching caused and produced high-quality, tonal images instead.

 

As well as portraits of the king, his wife and mistresses, of whom he had many, were also the subjects of detailed prints. These were adapted from paintings by various artists, however, Charles II never owned them himself. The benefit of printmaking was that several copies of the same image could be made at once, thus lowering the cost, making them affordable to members of the public. Many prints found themselves pinned on the walls of taverns and coffee shops where they could be appreciated by the masses and demonstrated the shop owners’ loyalty to the royal family.

The prints that Charles II did collect had a more functional nature. A particular print worthy of note was a map of London that revealed the damages caused by the Great Fire of London. The fire broke out on Sunday 2nd September 1666, only a few years into the king’s reign. Instead of fleeing for safety, Charles found himself standing before the heat of the flames, helping and overseeing the extinguishing of the destructive inferno. Shortly after the three-day long blaze, Charles commissioned his scenographer Wenceslaus Hollar (1607-77) to produce a detailed map revealing the buildings that had succumbed to the devastation. With the aid of the map, plans to rebuild a better, safer London was initiated and conducted quickly and efficiently.

 

Due to printmakers’ abilities to produce numerous copies of one item, illustrators and writers took full advantage in order to send their work out to a much wider audience. As a result, many satirical pieces began to arise, including the farcical The Horrid Hellish Popish-Plot (1682). With illustrations by an anonymous artist, the broadsheet attempted to mock the printed account A True Narrative of the Horrid Plot and Conspiracy of the Popish Party (Oates, 1679). The Popish Plot was indeed a fictitious conspiracy concocted by Titus Oates (1649-1705) in an attempt to accuse Catholics of conspiring to assassinate Charles II. The broadsheet owned by the Royal Collection Trust likens Oates’ testimony to the false witnesses who testified against Jesus Christ and included illustrations that resemble Judas Iscariot’s betrayal.

It is not until midway through the exhibition that the artworks begin to describe and reveal the actual life and reign of Charles II. The restoration of the monarchy not only reverted England to its Kingdom status, it essentially rebooted the lives of the royals. Just as the royal regalia previously mentioned had been destroyed, so too had the former residences, palaces and castles belonging to the first Stuart king. As a result, only Whitehall Palace and Hampton Court, which Cromwell had commandeered for his personal use, remained in functioning order.

Unfortunately, funds were low, and with many things in need of replacing, only Windsor Castle was rebuilt during Charles II’s lifetime. Of course, Windsor Castle has been revamped since the Stuarts were on the throne, however, watercolour illustrations by Charles Wild (1781-1835) reveal what the interior of the castle looked like after Charles’ renovations. On the ceiling of the St George’s Hall was a fresco painting featuring Charles II at its centre. All that remains of this fresco is the head and shoulders of the king which somebody had the foresight to rescue and preserve.

 

Charles II was a significant figure in the resurgence of arts and could often be found surrounded by beautiful women, actors, scientists and poets. His passion for the theatre re-established the playhouses which he and his court would regularly attend. This also marked a significant turning point in stage production; for the first time in history, women were allowed to act on stage. Previously, female parts had been performed by young male actors, but now women could take those positions themselves, including one of Charles’ long-time mistresses, Nell Gwyn (1650-87).

Being a great encourager of the arts, paintings became an expression of power for the monarch and his family. Not only did he own paintings of himself and his wife, he had all his mistresses painted as well. Amongst portraits of these ladies, including Nell Gwyn, Barbara Villiers, Duchess of Cleveland (1641-1709) and Mary Bagot, Duchess of Falmouth and Dorset (1645-79) sits the painting of Catherine of Braganza (1638-1705) who Charles married in 1662. Less alluring than her husband’s lovers, Catherine is depicted as a shepherdess, complete with a little lamb which may have been a reference to the children court and society hoped for her to have.  Unfortunately, despite three miscarriages, Catherine produced no royal heirs.

The most significant portrait in the collection is without a doubt the king himself, painted by John Michael Wright (1617-94). Featuring heavily on advertisements for the exhibition, this recognisable portrait is of a formidable size and is an outstanding piece of artwork. Charles II sits on a throne wearing the royal crown and is dressed in parliamentary robes over his Order of the Garter costume. In one hand he carried the Orb and the other the sceptre, both of which were made by Sir Robert Vyner for the king’s coronation. The colours and pose of the sitter are similar to portraits of past monarchs, thus conveying the continuation of the royal line.

 

Walking around the gallery, looking at the members of the royal court, it is easy to think of these historical figures as a form of still life, to be studied at a distance like precious objects in a museum. However, these were real people living real lives, but what is even more important is that these paintings do not represent the majority of the English population. At midday and midafternoon, talks are held at the gallery in front of Charles II’s prestigious portrait. Although each discourse will differ depending on the speaker, it is likely that the gallery worker will enlighten visitors about the true living situations of the people of London.

Before the Fire of London, houses were a mess of materials held together more by luck than architectural skill. One could be as bold as to say the fire did the people a favour by destroying their inadequate abodes in order to rebuild nicer looking, safer structures. The streets, however, would have been full of disease-ridden waste, including human excrement, which would be thrown from the windows of houses due to the lack of a sewage system. The streets of London stank and the Thames was full of the debris and detritus that flowed into it. The capital was not a pleasant place to live and the Royals were the only people who could reside there in comfort.

Whilst Charles’ collection of paintings may have hidden the true situation in London, they did introduce people of lower status. Although painted a year after the king’s death, an example of this features a full-length portrait of a domestic servant. Before the seventeenth century, it was extremely rare for a servant to feature in a painting let alone be the main subject. Bridget Holmes (1591-1691) was painted by the artist John Riley (1646-91) when she was at the ripe old age of 96. She had already served both Charles I and II and was now the “Necessary Woman” of James II. She would later serve under William III until her death at the age of 100. It is likely that this painting was produced in honour of her dedication to the royal family.

Charles’ love of the theatre resulted in actors (and actresses) receiving more respect than they had done in the past. John Lacy (c1615-81) was a comic actor who was a particular favourite of the king. Lacy was honoured with a three-in-one portrait which depicted himself in three different theatrical roles: the lead from The Taming of the Shrew, Monsieur Device from the Duke of Newcastle’s The Country Chaplain, and Parson Scruple in John Wilson’s The Cheats.

 

Although these portraits were one way of rebuilding the royal art collection, Charles II was determined to recover the original artworks belonging to his father. The Parliamentarians had sold off nearly all paintings belonging to Charles I, and the new king was doubtful that he would retrieve many of them. However, after instructing his subjects to return them immediately (later making this law), a significant amount was returned. Charles II was also gifted paintings from many dignitaries across Europe, including 28 from the States of Holland and West Friesland. In all, Charles II owned over 1000 paintings, a handful of which are exhibited in the final room at the gallery.

Charles preferred the Old Masters but also collected contemporary classical-style paintings. Those that were not returned or gifted to the king were likely ones he had purchased himself. Not believing he would ever see his father’s collection again, Charles sought out an art dealer in Breda, the Netherlands and purchased 72 paintings. One of these is the famous Massacre of the Innocents by Pieter Bruegel the Elder (1525-69). This popular image illustrates the slaughtering of babies under the orders of King Herod as written in Matthew’s Gospel in the New Testament after he learnt about the birth of Jesus from the wise men.

The royal collection accumulated other religious scenes from the art dealer and artists themselves who chose to honour the king with gifts of their paintings. One painter, Carlo Dolci (1616-86), sent Charles two paintings of biblical women: The Penitent Magdalene and Salome with the Head of John the Baptist. The latter refers to the imprisonment of John (Matthew 14: 3-12 and Mark 6: 17-29) and his subsequent beheading at the request of Herodias’ daughter.

Charles II also commissioned artists to produce paintings for rooms at Windsor Castle. Two examples are the mythological scenes painted by Benedetto Gennari (1633-1715) which hung in the king’s dining room. Titled Venus and the Sleeping Adonis and The Triumph of Galatea, these oil paintings represent love stories from Ovid’s Metamorphoses.

 

It is interesting to take note of the varying style of paintings collected by the third Stuart king. He owned a mix of religious and mythological narrative artworks, tapestries, portraits and so forth from a wide range of painters. This could potentially be a result of Charles’ desperation to rebuild his father’s grand collection, however, it is just as likely that he was an art aficionado and enjoyed an assortment of approaches and topics.

Admittedly, there are not many paintings at the Charles II exhibition that have the “wow factor”, nor do they linger in the mind after leaving the gallery. Although this is first and foremost an art exhibit, what the Queen’s Gallery has effectively achieved is an articulate history of the restoration of the monarchy. The combination of art and written explanation, as well as an optional audio guide, reveal to visitors far more than they may have learnt at school or discovered in their own time. Those whose interests lie in both British history and 16th- and 17th-century art will greatly enjoy and benefit from this exhibition – that is not to say, of course, that others will not!

Charles II: Art & Power will remain at the Queen’s Gallery, Buckingham Palace until Sunday 13th May 2018 leaving plenty of time for those who have not yet had the opportunity to view the exhibition to book their tickets. Entry prices for adults are £11 and this includes the option of a free audio guide which elaborates on certain paintings and objects.

Cézanne Portraits

cezanne_poster1

Cézanne Portraits Exhibition Poster

“The art exhibition of the year,” claims The Telegraph in their five-star rating after the opening of the National Portrait Gallery’s exhibition Cézanne Portraits on 26th October 2017. For the first time, over 50 portraits painted by the Post-Impressionist artist, Paul Cézanne (1839-1906) have been brought together from collections all over the world, including some that have never been displayed before in the United Kingdom.

Of the thousand paintings Cézanne produced during his career of four decades, only 160 or so were portraits. Naturally, the National Portrait Gallery has focused on these rather than the still life and landscape paintings the artist is also famous for. However, by studying portraits alone, a timeline of Cézanne’s life emerges complete with the changes in artistic style and his social interactions.

larger1

Paul Cézanne, ‘The Artist’s Father, Reading “L’Événement”‘ 1866

One of the first portraits in this exhibition is of Louis-Auguste Cézanne (1798-1886), the domineering father of the artist. Paul Cézanne was born on 19th January 1839 to Louis-Auguste and Anne Elizabeth Honorine and grew up in Aix-en-Provence in the south of France with his two younger sisters, Mary and Rose. His father, a hat manufacturer and part-time bank owner, wished for his son to enter the family banking business and insisted Cézanne study law at the Univerity of Aix. However, Cézanne’s passion remained in drawing for which he took evening classes and eventually received his father’s permission to study at the Académie Suisse in Paris.

The painting of Louis-Auguste Cézanne, titled The Artist’s Father, Reading “L’Événement”, reveals his officious character seated on a throne-like chair. Although it may not be obvious immediately, there is a sign of the hostility between father and son by the inclusion of the title of the paper. Presumably, Cézanne’s father sat for his son with a newspaper in hand, however, Cézanne has painted on a title that his father would never read. L’Événement was a paper in which the French writer and close friend, Émile Zola, often published favourable reviews of some painters.

The artistic style is fairly typical of Cézanne’s early work with thick paint heavily spread with a palette knife. The colours are mainly black, greys and burnt sienna, which the artist favoured during his studies in Paris where he met Impressionist painters Monet, Renoir and Pissarro. The latter became a good friend and eventually rid the dark colours from Cézanne’s paintings and encouraged him to be more fluid with his brush strokes. However, until then, Cézanne persevered with his dense paintings, unfortunately being rejected several times by the Salon, France’s official art exhibition.

Only one portrait of Cézanne’s father is on show, however, there are several paintings of other family members and friends. It appears that an Uncle Dominique was a willing sitter during Cézanne’s beginning years as an artist. The portraits are slabbed with thick, dark paint with the palette knife and brush strokes clearly visible. His uncle was painted from different angles implying that Cézanne was using the willing volunteer for painting practice. Cézanne never charged for his portraits – another reason his uncle was probably happy to be his model!

The person to feature most often in Cézanne’s portraits was his wife, Hortense Fiquet (1850-1922). They first met in 1869 whilst Cézanne was studying, however, did not marry until 1886 because they worried about the reaction of his father. Cézanne feared his father would disapprove of the relationship and cut him off financially. Although Cézanne made a little money from paintings, he was reliant upon the allowance supplied by his father.

When Cézanne met Hortense, she was making a living as a seamstress and model, therefore, because she was accustomed to sitting still for long periods, was an ideal subject for portraits. It is thought that Cézanne painted 40 portraits of his wife, a significant contrast to the handful he produced of his son, Paul, born in 1872. A number of paintings of Hortense are shown in this exhibition and span the length of Cézanne’s career. Comparing the early portraits with the later ones signifies the slight changes in style, from sombre slab-like paint to fluid, lighter brushstrokes.

Admittedly, Hortense Cézanne was not much to look at and her husband never attempted to flatter her in his paintings. She comes across as a stern, severe, unsmiling woman who is never very happy. Perhaps her facial expression, or lack of, is an indication of the length of time she had to sit for her perfectionist husband. Cézanne suffered from self-doubt and often reworked paintings to try and make them better or ripped up the canvas if he was not satisfied with it.

When studying, Cézanne was often found in the Louvre admiring and copying paintings by Rubens, Michelangelo and Titian. He loved the style of Caravaggio’s work but was not confident enough about his artistic ability to pursue this approach – hence his impressionistic technique.

Although Cézanne painted his wife numerous times, the paintings never quite look like the same person. There are enough similarities to know who the portraits depict, however, there are some which could easily be believed to be sisters rather than one individual. Cézanne focused more on the shading and colours in a composition than the person or object he was painting, which often resulted in obscure proportions.

The changes from heavily loaded brushes and palette knives to the more gentle technique occurred after Cézanne spent some time with Camille Pissarro (1830-1903) in Auvers-sur-Oise, a commune in the northwestern suburbs of France, not far from the capital city.  Here, Pissarro taught Cézanne a few impressionist techniques including how to apply soft colours with small brushstrokes.

“Pissarro was like a father to me, a little like God”

Cézanne went on to exhibit at the first (1874) and third (1877) Impressionist Group exhibitions, however, his work was heavily criticised. Although Cézanne adopted a few impressionist approaches, he was different from the other exhibitors, thus falling into the category of Post-Impressionism.

paul_cc3a9zanne2c_gustave_geffroy2c_1895-962c_01

Portrait of Gustave Geffroy 1895

As the exhibition progresses in a somewhat chronological order, the paintings lose their sombre tone and begin to reveal more colour, particularly red. A Boy in a Red Waistcoat (1888-90), pictured on the poster for the exhibition, is evidence of this. Cézanne also applied unnatural colours to create shadow and tone within the faces. This, critics believe, is the evidence of a new direction that Cézanne’s work was taking: Cubism.

Cubist artists have also been interested in Cézanne’s Portrait of Gustave Geffroy (1865), a French novelist and critic. Unlike many of his previous portraits, this one has a detailed background containing a bookcase with geometric dimensions that contrast with the sitter.

In true Cézanne fashion, this painting took three months to complete and he was still not happy with it. “I am a little upset at the meagre result I obtained, especially after so many sittings and successive bursts of enthusiasm and despair.” However, he did not destroy his efforts. Likewise, his portrait of Ambroise Vollard (1866-1939), an art dealer who promoted Cézanne’s worktook over 100 sittings. Apparently, Cézanne professed he was “not displeased with the shirt front” and promptly abandoned the painting.

“Cézanne’s art … lies between the old kind of picture, faithful to a striking or beautiful object, and the modern ‘abstract’ kind of painting, a moving harmony of colour touches representing nothing.” – an art critic

As the exhibition approaches the final sections, Cézanne’s style shifts slightly once more. By this point, he was applying geometric shapes to his still-life and landscape paintings, moving closer to Cubism and further from Impressionism. Although he did not go as far as to create Cubist portraits, it may have influenced some of the changes that are shown in this display.

The Gardener Vallier c.1906 by Paul C?zanne 1839-1906

The Gardener Vallier, 1906

As Cézanne got older, so did his models, including some farm labourers who he paid to sit for him. One who began to feature frequently was his gardener and general handyman.

One of Cézanne’s final portraits of the gardener, The Gardener Vallier (1906), is a total contrast to the paintings at the beginning of his career. The painting looks rushed as though it was sketched quickly and not finished, however, the painting actually took years to produce.

Cézanne was largely misunderstood by the public during his lifetime and it was not until 1904 that the Salon finally accepted his work. This begs the question why? Impressionist painters were popular amongst art collectors but Cézanne was never treated in the same way. Maybe critics thought he was not a good artist, after all, his paintings were rarely accurately portrayed.

Nonetheless, Cézanne is now considered one of the most influential artists of the nineteenth century and continues to inspire painters today. The famous Picasso dubbed him the “father of us all” and Matisse, who bought a piece by Cézanne in 1899, was another painter impacted by his work.

“It has sustained me spiritually in critical moments of my career as an artist; from it I have drawn my faith and perserverance.” – Matisse, 1936

After seeing the exhibition, it is not clear what The Telegraph saw to give it a five-star review. Admittedly, the paintings are displayed well in a logical order, each room containing information about the portraits and details about Cézanne’s life. There is also a short video showing images of his studio in Aix, which is now a museum open to the public. However, unless visitors are Cézanne fanatics, a five-star rating seems a bit excessive. The National Portrait Gallery always do well to curate extensive exhibitions, but it ultimately comes down to personal taste.

“Painting is damned difficult – you always think you’ve got it, but you haven’t.”
– Cézanne

Cézanne Portraits will be on display until 11th February 2018. Tickets are priced £18