Showing posts with label Salkeld - Richard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Salkeld - Richard. Show all posts

Friday, 1 July 2016

Bob Davison - Museum in the Park, Stroud; National Botanic Garden of Wales

Bob Davison, Borders, Big Yellow, 2014
Bob Davison: Borders was at Museum in the Park, Stroud until 31 July 2016 and then at National Botanic Garden of Wales, 22 April - 21 June 2017.
The following text was written for the catalogue.

About Looking
Borders: outlines and edges, but, also, national boundaries, flower beds and frames. Borders define areas but also propose the ambiguity of a place of transition: where precisely are you as you cross the border from one state to another? Where precisely does the town end and the country begin?

The notion of a borderland is apt for Bob Davison’s art which occupies the liminal state between figuration and abstraction, mirroring perceptual processes which integrate objective observation with the subjectivity and ambiguity of memories and feelings.

The mystery and magic of seeing is that, unlike a camera’s mechanical recording of data, our vision is constantly informed and coloured by experience both consciously and unconsciously: what lies beyond the border of consciousness shapes what lies within; what lies outside our immediate frame of vison informs what we see inside.
Bob Davison, Dappled, Big Red, 2015
Davison’s subtle and beautiful meditations on nature and memory, on colour and form, are rich counterpoints to the mechanistic images which dominate our contemporary culture and ways of seeing. Pictures are everywhere. In 1964 Susan Sontag wrote Ours is a culture based on excess, on overproduction [1]; half a century on, our visual culture is super-saturated with images. The camera has a lot to answer for.

The gifts of photography to knowledge – and to art – have been prodigious. But photography has spoiled us, too. We have been spoiled, not just by the superfluity of images - Is there any thing, any place, that has not yet been photographed, that we cannot ‘see’ and know through this extraordinary medium? - but it has also spoiled us in the very act of perception.

Lee Friedlander, wanting a snapshot of his uncle with his new car noted that, I got him and the car. I also got a bit of Aunt Mary’s laundry and Beau Jack, the dog, peeing on a fence, and a row of potted tuberous begonias on the porch and seventy-eight trees and a million pebbles in the driveway and more. It’s a generous medium, photography.[2]

Generous to a fault. The camera’s gaze reveals everything in fascinating, but superficial, detail. Human perception might seem a poor thing next to the revelatory detail furnished in a high definition, colour saturated, digital image, showing us all the visual information we would otherwise have overlooked – and, perhaps, it has made us lazy; in Sontag’s view, the result is a steady loss of sharpness in our sensory experience [3]. We see only the surface appearance; we need to look harder.

Which is where drawing and painting comes in. Bob Davison’s pictures offer rich pleasures and demand prolonged looking: they embody the recognition that the fullest experience of the world is dependent not on mere knowledge and information (both in overwhelmingly plentiful supply in our digital world) but on looking, thinking, acting and feeling. (John Constable declared painting is… feeling [4]). 
Bob Davison, Petiolaris, 2013
Visual perception is more than data collection: it is informed by movement and emotion, memories and imagination. The human eye is never still; it is constantly scanning and calculating, discriminating and selecting. We experience the world by moving through it. We see what is interesting and important to us – what is meaningful. These sights and the accompanying sensations and emotions are stored away as memories – imperfectly, perhaps – to inform subsequent perceptions.

Remembering a selection of Davison’s paintings and drawings seen during a recent visit to his studio, I remember, in particular, a scattering of bright yellow flowers (Welsh poppies, perhaps?) a swathe of curious, white oblong forms rhythmically dispersed across the canvas (sometimes suggestive of blossom, sometimes of patterns of light), the elegant silhouettes of complex plant forms.
Bob Davison, Umbellifers, 2014
When I return to look again I find that (of course) my recollections are inadequate. The richness, complexity and subtle layering of Davison’s work mean that – unlike ‘reading’ a photograph which can deliver a great deal of information very quickly (and need not detain the viewer for very long) – the paintings demand, and repay, prolonged scrutiny and even then do not exhaust their visual pleasures, for each further viewing will reveal fresh colours, forms and textures.

The achievement of these paintings is hard won: Davison’s study of nature and art has been intense, resulting in his mastery both of drawing from nature and of the language of painting. The story of modern painting has broadly been a dance (sometimes a battle) between figuration and abstraction – for a while total abstraction was the dominant mode (and Davison’s early work shows his mastery of a minimalist style) but, today, a fruitful dialogue (cross-border discussion) is possible, and Davison’s work is exemplary in this respect.  As flowers dance in a breeze, so shapes and forms in the paintings dance between figure and abstraction: forms dissolve and reform in the ambiguous, translucent space of shadows and reflections. It is a mark of great painting that form and content are, as here, inseparable from each other.

To return, finally, to Susan Sontag’s reflections on modern visual culture: her prescription to counter what she sees as the dulling effect of our over exposure to images is simple: What is important now is to recover our senses. We must learn to see more, to hear more, to feel more [5]. The gift of Bob Davison’s luminous paintings is precisely to reward the act of looking with an apprehension of the beauty and mystery of the world before us: to cross the border between appearance and sensation, between looking and feeling.

Richard Salkeld, 2016.

[1] Susan Sontag (2009) Against Interpretation and Other Essays, London: Penguin, p13 
[2] Galassi, Peter (2005) Friedlander, NY: The Museum of Modern Art, New York, p14
[3] Susan Sontag, ibid., p13
[4] Stephen F. Eisenman (2011) Nineteenth Century Art, London: Thanes & Hudson, p232
[5] Susan Sontag, ibid., p14

Monday, 14 March 2016

Painting the Modern Garden: Monet to Matisse - Royal Academy

Claude Monet, The Japanese Bridge, c1923-5
(The following review is published in Landscape Issues, Vol.15, Nos.1 & 2, May 2016)
Claude Monet is undoubtedly the star of this huge show – supported by a cast of some 40 other painters. Although the exhibition title signals a historical span bookended by Monet and Matisse, it is notable that the later giant of Modern art is represented by a paltry two paintings to Monet’s 35 or so.
It is, nevertheless, quite fitting that this should be so: given the premise of the exhibition, that many pioneers of modern painting were enthusiastic gardeners, and engaged in a productive dialogue between the possibilities of horticulture and painting, Monet is in a league of his own. Not only did his garden at Giverny become the exclusive subject of his painting, but the garden itself was a work of art. Monet was no mere Sunday-gardener, he was nothing less than a landscape architect. Over a period of 40 years, from 1890, he developed and extended a country garden into a 6-acre composition of foliage and flowers; eventually he was able to employ 6 gardeners and divert a local river to create the famous water garden with its iconic Japanese bridge. Monet declared that his garden was his studio.
The period spanned by the exhibition – roughly 1864 to 1928 – was, art historically, one of extraordinary invention and experiment. Modernism was forged in wave after wave of avant-gardism: Impressionism, Post-Impressionism, Fauvism, Cubism, Futurism, Dada, Surrealism. Broadly, this is a story of escalating ‘difficulty’ in painting – difficulty for the viewer, that is, as what was seen in paintings became increasingly disconnected from what could be seen in the natural world and increasingly engaged with psychology, abstraction and provocation, to say nothing of revolutionary politics.
Understandably, there is little of that revolutionary ilk here – the section rather cornily labelled ‘avant-gardeners’ does present some of the major figures of that extraordinary period – Van Gogh, Klimt, Klee, Kandinsky, Nolde, Matisse – but, Nolde and Klimt, aside this fairly tame section feels like a distraction from the main business of supplying visual pleasure and, in particular, the pleasure of flowers.
The overriding aesthetic ethos of this exhibition is Impressionism. It is hard, now, to believe that Impressionism was ever shocking. Impressionism may have initially, and briefly, provoked a negative response – to a public and to critics weaned on polished, academic pictures, the brushy smudges of pure colour seemed unfinished and hard to ‘read’ – but, eventually, once the idea of a spontaneous response to the play of light on the natural world was grasped, the movement became, and remains, immensely popular. While more radical avant-gardism was intent on épater les bourgeois the Impressionists forged an art that was bourgeois to its core, intent principally on visual pleasure. Impressionism combined here with gardening is a cast-iron crowd pleaser.
The exhibition is, indeed, rich in visual pleasure for both the connoisseurs of painting and of horticulture – though, perhaps, less reliably so for the latter. The joy of Impressionism is that the painters played fast and loose with the visual sensations offered by the sunlit scenes before them so that flowers become sensuous smears of red, orange, white and blue rather than botanically accurate representations.
Overall, I think there is more to be learned here about the development of modern painting than about the ‘modern garden’ of the title. Highlights include marvellously ethereal paintings by Berthe Morisot (Woman and Child in a Meadow, 1882) and Edouard Manet (Young Woman among Flowers, 1879); Max Liebermann’s Flowering Bushes by the Garden Shed, 1928, rendered in thick, dense, glossy smears of paint; Joaquin Mir y Trinxet’s intense veils of colour in Garden of Mogoda, 1915-19; Emil Nolde’s slabs of deep blue, bright red, yellow and green forming a solid wall of blooms in Flower Garden (O), 1922; and Gustav Klimt’s cascade of flowers in Cottage Garden, 1905-07. Perhaps one of the oddest, yet most interesting, paintings is Henri Matisse’s The Rose Marble Table, 1917: the salmony-pink, octagonal table, stands against a predominantly brown ground relieved only by some dark green foliage; on the table’s perspectivally tilted surface is a small basket and three small green spheres of what might be fruit. The uncharacteristic gloom of this picture, by a typically joyful painter, is ascribed to then ongoing horrors of the Great War.
Finally, however, the show belongs to Monet. Three rooms are devoted to his paintings. In the first, situated in the middle of the exhibition, are paintings executed from around 1895 to 1905: some of his much reproduced paintings of the Japanese footbridge across the pond in his garden are so familiar that they seem like clichés; however, the paintings of water lilies and swathes of blossom are seductively subtle essays in colour and form. The other two rooms form the climax to the exhibition and are simply stunning. In the first of these The Japanese Bridge c1923-25 is a dense shimmer of deep, rich reds and greens dissolving the form of the bridge so that it is only just perceptible.
The final room is spectacular. On one side is the huge Water Lilies (after 1918) - a 4 metre-wide haze of pale yellow-greens within which occasional highlights of orange-red flowers glow. And opposite is the truly immense triptych, Water Lilies (Agapanthus), c1915-26, altogether some 12 metres wide: this stands not just as the apotheosis of Monet’s career as a painter but is pregnant with the then future possibilities of painting and abstraction. Magnificent.

Richard Salkeld.
(Click on images to enlarge.)
Edouard Manet, Young Woman Among Flowers, 1879
Gustav Klimt, Cottage Garden, 1905-07
Emil Nolde, Large Poppies, 1908
Emil Nolde, Flower Garden (O), 1922

Santiago Rusiñol, Glorieta VII, Aranjuez, 1919
Joaquin Mir y Trinxet, The Artist's Garden, c1922
Claude Monet, Water Lilies, after 1918
Claude Monet, Water Lilies (Agapanthus), c1915-26 (detail)
Claude Monet, Water Lilies (Agapanthus), c1915-26 (installation view)